Leslie Grove Park
Parkette, one of the city's strongest overall (score 68, rank ~100th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by Michael M via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Leslie Grove Park scores 68.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (28.4). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.76 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Street context
Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Top-down view
City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.
City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer
Explain this score
Where did the 68 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (77) significantly outpaces natural comfort (42) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
- Strong physical conditions (score 68) but weak observed activity signals (9) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
- High connectivity (77) coexists with little programming evidence — easy to reach, but no recurring civic life detected.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 68 versus an expected 36 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +32).
Typology classification
Classified as Parkette: small (7613 m²) with strong building frontage (31.6 per 100 m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 43 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 30 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~412 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, washroom). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.3% effective canopy (3.7% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1050 m; 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
130 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (36 mid-rise, 94 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.3 m (~3 floors); 31.6 buildings per 100 m of 412 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 36 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.
Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints
Equity Context
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 (3 types · 3 records)
- playground
- tennis
- washroom
Nearby active-edge features (70)
- transit stop — Jones Ave at Queen St E2 m
- cafe — Tango Palace Coffee Company4 m
- restaurant — Completo10 m
- transit stop — Jones Avenue11 m
- transit stop — Jones Avenue16 m
- retail — Just B Salon17 m
- transit stop — Jones Ave at Queen St E20 m
- retail — The Scene20 m
- restaurant — Nola Eatry & Bar20 m
- retail — Timeless Nail Spa26 m
- restaurant — Kibo Sushi House29 m
- transit stop — Jones Avenue29 m
- transit stop — Jones Avenue31 m
- restaurant — The BellyBuster Submarines31 m
- retail — The Frame Maker32 m
- restaurant — La Paella33 m
- retail — Woof Gang33 m
- retail — Emerald Hair & Beauty35 m
- retail — Unyozi Beauty37 m
- retail — Raise the Root38 m
- retail — Toronto Scuba Centre39 m
- retail — Love Me Do Baby43 m
- restaurant — Radical Road Brewing Co.44 m
- retail — Scout47 m
- retail — Philistine49 m
- restaurant — Descendant49 m
- retail — The Cookery56 m
- restaurant — Dave's Hot Chicken67 m
- retail — 6ix Side Vapes67 m
- retail — Eye Studio69 m
- restaurant — Hanoi 3 Seasons71 m
- cafe — Allwood73 m
- retail77 m
- retail — Timmie's80 m
- restaurant — Domino's81 m
- retail — Wingzilla85 m
- retail — Himalayan Collections87 m
- retail — Bobbette & Belle89 m
- restaurant — Tinga Kim Taqueria92 m
- retail93 m
- retail — Leslieville Kitchens97 m
- retail — Canadian Imaging Solutions99 m
- retail99 m
- restaurant — Goods & Provisions102 m
- restaurant — YAYA Greek Bistro104 m
- retail — Doll Factory by Damzels106 m
- retail — Bronze Home Decor111 m
- restaurant — Nodo115 m
- restaurant — Mini Bar115 m
- restaurant — B & B Fish and Chips120 m
- retail — Simit and chai130 m
- transit stop — Caroline Avenue133 m
- restaurant — Fangio Trattoria136 m
- retail — Berry Bush137 m
- parking lot145 m
- retail — Maude & Art147 m
- retail152 m
- transit stop — Brooklyn Avenue152 m
- restaurant — Pasaj153 m
- cafe — Remarkable Bean158 m
- retail — T & F Auto Repair168 m
- parking lot169 m
- retail — Joseph's Barber & Hairstyling171 m
- retail — Bettencourt Manour176 m
- retail — Kristapsons182 m
- restaurant — Queen's Head Pub186 m
- retail — The Side Kitchen186 m
- retail — Eadry Foods189 m
- cafe — Kidaultland Cafe194 m
- restaurant — The Friendly Thai198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality100th
- Edge activation100th
- Connectivity97th
- Amenity diversity95th
- Natural comfort42th
- Enclosure94th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
- Maple Leaf Forever ParkUrban Plaza61
- Matty Eckler PlaygroundNeighbourhood Park61
- Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60
- Graham ParkUrban Plaza59
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
p85 citywide · p90 within Parkette
Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of Leslie Grove Parkmatters. 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.
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.