Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Englemount-Lawrence (32)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Lawrence Heights Park

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~37th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Lawrence Heights Park scores 31.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.30 ha

Vitality Score

31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

31.3 / 100

Citywide

37th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

40th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Parkette (n=218)

Performance gap

-5

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 31 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

Edge Activation0 · p35

-12.5

Amenity Diversity12 · p76

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)

-2.2

Connectivity60 · p74

+2.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p61

+1.6

Natural Comfort50 · p60

+0.0

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

Lawrence Heights Park works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its connectivity (60) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Lawrence Heights Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 72.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (12, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Lawrence Heights Park 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 (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (72) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (2957 m²) with strong building frontage (5.5 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) and 14 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot). 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%

60.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 15 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 32 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~235 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)15

Transit stops (400 m)32

Estimated entrances3

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.42

Park perimeter235 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 (playground). 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 15%

50.0 / 100

Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence — read with caution.

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 polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used22

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

66.1 / 100

13 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 11 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.3 m (~2 floors); 5.5 buildings per 100 m of 235 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 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m13

Buildings within 50 m13

Avg edge height6.3 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building10.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2

Low-rise (< 3 floors)11

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density5.53 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge15%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter235 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 (1 types · 1 records)

playground

Nearby active-edge features (34)

transit stop — Flemington Rd at Replin Rd6 m
transit stop — Flemington Rd at Replin Rd18 m
parking lot36 m
parking lot40 m
parking lot43 m
parking lot48 m
parking lot48 m
parking lot48 m
parking lot52 m
parking lot54 m
parking lot56 m
parking lot60 m
parking lot62 m
parking lot68 m
parking lot69 m
parking lot71 m
transit stop73 m
parking lot102 m
transit stop — Flemington Rd at Varna Dr114 m
parking lot125 m
parking lot127 m
parking lot131 m
parking lot137 m
parking lot144 m
parking lot147 m
parking lot158 m
parking lot162 m
parking lot164 m
parking lot175 m
parking lot187 m
highway — Allen Road189 m
transit stop — Varna Dr at Flemington Rd189 m
rail — Line 1 Yonge-University194 m
parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
37th
Edge activation
35th
Connectivity
74th
Amenity diversity
76th
Natural comfort
60th
Enclosure
61th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

ADAM BECK COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park38
Plowshare ParkNeighbourhood Park37
Clarinda ParkParkette35
Madelaine ParkCorridor / Linear Park37
Redpath Avenue ParketteCivic Square34

Most opposite parks

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

Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57

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 Lawrence Heights 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.

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.
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

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.