Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Don Valley Village (47)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Other, below average overall (score 29, rank ~27th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds scores 29.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.79 ha

Vitality Score
29/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
29.2 / 100
Citywide
27th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
68th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
24
median in small Other (n=41)
Performance gap
+6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 29 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 Diversity0 · p42
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Natural Comfort40 · p36
-1.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park59 · p28
+0.9
Connectivity49 · p52
-0.3

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

FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds is held back by enclosure (59, below-average).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (59, below-average).

Jacobs reading

FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its other typology (+6 vs the median in small Other).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (27th), it ranks highly among similar others (68th) — strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.8 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 2.4/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 5 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%
48.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 34 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~377 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)34
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.80
Park perimeter377 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
39.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~987 m; 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.0/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)987 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon9
Tree density9.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used55

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
58.5 / 100

9 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 28.9 m (~10 floors); 2.4 buildings per 100 m of 377 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges lean tall but still framed; 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m9
Buildings within 50 m9
Avg edge height28.9 m (~10 floors)
Tallest edge building55.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)1
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density2.39 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge67%
Tower share of edge22%
Blank-edge share (proxy)20%
Park perimeter377 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (51)

  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — Fairview Drive / Godstone Road1 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • retail — FYIdoctors76 m
  • retail — FYidoctors82 m
  • parking lot85 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Fairview Mall Drive North Side112 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Fairview Mall Drive North Side119 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Leith Hill Road North Side125 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • retail — Zorite135 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Leith Hill Road North Side137 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Esterbrooke Avenue140 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Esterbrooke Avenue142 m
  • retail — H&M149 m
  • retail — The Children's Place152 m
  • retail — Norma Reed157 m
  • retail — 大統華 T&T Supermarket158 m
  • retail — Champs Sports159 m
  • retail — WirelessWave164 m
  • retail — Strauss Men's Wear165 m
  • retail — Bell167 m
  • retail — QE Home168 m
  • retail — Le Château168 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • retail — Kids Foot Locker170 m
  • retail — Aldo171 m
  • transit stop — Don Mills Road at Leith Hill Road171 m
  • retail — Steve Madden175 m
  • retail — Call It Spring180 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • retail — RW&CO.181 m
  • retail — Jack & Jones181 m
  • retail — Aritzia182 m
  • retail — Urban Kids182 m
  • retail — Suzy Shier184 m
  • retail — Mobile Snap184 m
  • parking lot185 m
  • retail — Lush186 m
  • retail — Soft Moc187 m
  • retail — Best Buy Express190 m
  • retail — Virgin Plus191 m
  • retail — Lego194 m
  • retail — Sleep Country195 m
  • retail — Foot Locker197 m
  • restaurant — McDonald's197 m
  • restaurant — Szechuan Express199 m
  • restaurant200 m
  • retail — Freedom Mobile200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    27th
  • Edge activation
    35th
  • Connectivity
    52th
  • Amenity diversity
    42th
  • Natural comfort
    36th
  • Enclosure
    28th

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 FAIRVIEW PUBLIC LIBRARY - Building Groundsmatters. 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

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.