Urban Plazacluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Cliffcrest (123)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

J.A. Leslie Tot Lot

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~61th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

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

J.A. Leslie Tot Lot scores 36.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.30 ha

Vitality Score

37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence

36.5 / 100

Citywide

61st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

47th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Urban Plaza (n=100)

Performance gap

-2

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 37 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 Diversity12 · p76

-7.6

Edge Activation24 · p80

-6.5

Connectivity24 · p12

-5.2

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park84 · p90

+3.4

Natural Comfort33 · p16

-2.5

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

J.A. Leslie Tot Lot works because its enclosure score (84) is in the top tier and its edge activation (24) is also top quartile (4 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

J.A. Leslie Tot Lot is held back by connectivity (24, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (84, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

J.A. Leslie Tot Lot sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

The park is enclosed by buildings (84) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 24) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 3036 m², paved (0% canopy), 15.7 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

24.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) and 2 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, 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%

23.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 1 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~306 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m3

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)1

Transit stops (400 m)13

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter306 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (tennis). 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 36%

33.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1213 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, 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)1,213 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density2.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used23

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

83.9 / 100

48 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 40 low-rise, 4 tower); avg edge height 9.4 m (~3 floors); 15.7 buildings per 100 m of 306 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 4 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m48

Buildings within 50 m48

Avg edge height9.4 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building47.9 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)4

Low-rise (< 3 floors)40

Towers (≥ 13 floors)4

Frontage density15.68 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge8%

Tower share of edge8%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter306 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (1 types · 1 records)

tennis

Nearby active-edge features (14)

transit stop45 m
transit stop — Midland Ave at Park St60 m
parking lot64 m
transit stop65 m
highway — Kingston Road93 m
transit stop — Park St at Midland Ave94 m
highway — Kingston Road104 m
highway — Kingston Road109 m
transit stop121 m
highway — Kingston Road146 m
parking lot170 m
transit stop — Midland Avenue175 m
highway — Kingston Road187 m
highway — Kingston Road187 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
61th
Edge activation
80th
Connectivity
12th
Amenity diversity
76th
Natural comfort
16th
Enclosure
90th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Warrender ParkUrban Plaza38
East Highland Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park33
ISLINGTON SENIORS' CENTRE - Building GroundsUrban Plaza37
Trca Lands ( 46)Ravine / Naturalized Park29
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park35

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park31
Sir Casimir Gzowski ParkWaterfront Park33
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27

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 J.A. Leslie Tot Lotmatters. 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.

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.
Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
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.

Data sources

City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
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.