Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Susan Tibaldi Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Dovercourt-Wallace Emerson-Junction (93)confidence moderate

Susan Tibaldi Parkette

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 46, rank ~89th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Susan Tibaldi Parkette scores 46.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (19.9). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (78). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.13 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Drinking water
Vitality Score
46/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
46.4 / 100
Citywide
89th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
81st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
+9
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 46 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.

Download JSON
What pushed this score up or down vs a neutral 50weight × score
Amenity Diversity20 · p66
-6.0
Connectivity79 · p98
+5.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park82 · p87
+3.2
Border Vacuum Risk78 (risk)
-2.8
Edge Activation42 · p93
-2.1
Natural Comfort40 · p35
-1.5

Sum of contributions = the headline score. A negative bar means that dimension dragged the park below the city-wide neutral baseline.

Why this park works

Susan Tibaldi Parkette works because its connectivity score (79) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (42) is also top decile (26 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 17 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Susan Tibaldi Parkette's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 78.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (79, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Susan Tibaldi Parkette sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (79) significantly outpaces natural comfort (40): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (78): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+9 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1286 m², paved (0% canopy), 47.1 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
41.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 51 active uses (restaurant, retail, cafe) and 6 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail, highway). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.

Source: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
78.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 26 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~191 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m14
Intersections within 100 m17
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)26
Estimated entrances8
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter7.33
Park perimeter191 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
19.9 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, drinking_water). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
39.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon11
Tree density11.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used12

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
81.8 / 100

90 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 84 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 47.1 buildings per 100 m of 191 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m90
Buildings within 50 m90
Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)84
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density47.10 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter191 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
78.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Toronto Parking Authority, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Bloor Street West. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints

Equity Context

contextinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Equity Context requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Source: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles

Amenities (2 types · 3 records)

  • playground
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth0 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth0 m
  • retail: Saponeti20 m
  • cafe: Buco Café28 m
  • retail: Bloor Army Surplus36 m
  • retail: Cell Phone Clinic36 m
  • retail: Tower City Inc Dollar & Variety37 m
  • restaurant: Bar Neon37 m
  • retail37 m
  • retail: BikeDepot.com37 m
  • retail: Bengal Grocery & Variety38 m
  • retail38 m
  • retail: TCM Spa Bloor Inc.38 m
  • retail: Blue Collar Bakery38 m
  • retail: Lashed by Carina39 m
  • restaurant: Duffy's Tavern39 m
  • retail: Five Star Variety42 m
  • retail45 m
  • retail: Bakerbots @ home46 m
  • retail: Magic Touch Beauty Salon47 m
  • parking lot: Toronto Parking Authority47 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West50 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West50 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West51 m
  • retail: SL Graphics & Printing51 m
  • retail: Sweet Pete's Bicycle Shop52 m
  • retail: Vape Pub57 m
  • retail: Comfrey Spa62 m
  • retail: Colibri Tattoo & Piercings63 m
  • retail64 m
  • restaurant: Monte Bianco64 m
  • cafe: Bunna Aroma65 m
  • retail: Town66 m
  • retail: QT Jewellery & Watches66 m
  • retail: Nail Spa & Massage Clinic66 m
  • retail: Corner Pocket66 m
  • retail: Amkay's Mk's67 m
  • retail: Supermart Convenience67 m
  • retail: Mona Lisa Hair Salon68 m
  • retail: Ransack the Universe68 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Pizza68 m
  • retail: The Hermits Lamp70 m
  • restaurant: Sad Songs Cantina71 m
  • retail: Nut House72 m
  • restaurant: Alma75 m
  • retail: Vito's Barbershop76 m
  • restaurant: Subway77 m
  • retail: Bangladesh Corner Variety77 m
  • retail: Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel78 m
  • restaurant: Ibet Sushi80 m
  • retail: Queens's Shop80 m
  • restaurant: Grey Tiger81 m
  • restaurant: Island Oysters85 m
  • restaurant: Latin World85 m
  • retail: The Sword & Board86 m
  • restaurant: The Three Speed89 m
  • restaurant: Burdock Brewery90 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West100 m
  • retail: The Salvation Army101 m
  • retail: Dee'tails Dog Grooming104 m
  • transit stop: Emerson Avenue (Lansdowne Station)105 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West111 m
  • retail: Family Fruit and Flower113 m
  • restaurant: Green Bamboo115 m
  • retail: Galaxy T&T118 m
  • restaurant: African Delight118 m
  • retail: Bloordale Village Laundromat120 m
  • restaurant: Latin World121 m
  • retail: Old Finds General Store & Tea Shop123 m
  • retail: Furniture Emporium126 m
  • retail: Eyesore Cinema127 m
  • restaurant: The John132 m
  • retail133 m
  • retail136 m
  • retail: Growers Retail136 m
  • restaurant: Happy Cub Bar & Restaurant138 m
  • retail142 m
  • retail: Easy Health Food Store143 m
  • retail: HashLands Cannabis Co150 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons160 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSusan Tibaldi Parkette
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    89th
  • Edge activation
    93th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    66th
  • Natural comfort
    35th
  • Enclosure
    87th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Human activity signals: not available

No activity signals have landed for this park yet. The model has scored its physical form but it can’t yet say how often it’s programmed, photographed, or walked through. See /data-ethics for what we will and will not collect.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Susan Tibaldi Parkettematters. We’re testing whether the model lines up with how people actually use the park. Submissions are stored locally; no account needed.

Tell us how this park feels

We measure structure (canopy, edges, connectivity). You measure feeling. Both matter, and disagreement is itself useful civic data.

Rate this park on as many dimensions as you have an opinion about. 1 = not at all, 5 = strongly. Skip the ones you don't feel sure about. Aggregated only, no comments stored at the row level.

feels socially active
feels comfortable
feels safe
feels connected
feels welcoming
feels ecological / natural
feels good for lingering
feels family-friendly
feels culturally important
70%

What would improve this park?

Generated from the weakest measured dimensions: a starting point, not a prescription.

  • Activate the edges: encourage cafés, retail or community uses on the streets that face the park; replace blank or parking-lot edges where possible.
  • Diversify what people can do in the park (playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden): even small additions raise this score.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • Parks & Recreation Facilities
    Inventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
  • Toronto Pedestrian Network
    Sidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
  • Toronto Centreline V2
    Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
  • Toronto 3D Massing
    Building footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
  • Toronto Treed Area
    Tree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
  • Toronto Waterbodies & Rivers
    Water surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
  • Ravine & Natural Feature Protection
    Ravine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
  • Toronto Street Tree Inventory
    Tree count + density inside park polygons.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.