Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)York University Heights (27)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

TORONTO TRACK AND FIELD CENTRE - Building Grounds

Other, below average overall (score 27, rank ~19th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

TORONTO TRACK AND FIELD CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 27.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 12.02 ha

Vitality Score

27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

27.2 / 100

Citywide

19th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

56th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Other (n=22)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence medium

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 27 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

Connectivity76 · p96

+5.1

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park27 · p3

-2.3

Natural Comfort47 · p53

-0.5

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

TORONTO TRACK AND FIELD CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its connectivity score (76) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile (37 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 20 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

TORONTO TRACK AND FIELD CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by enclosure (27, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (27, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

TORONTO TRACK AND FIELD CENTRE - Building Grounds is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (76) significantly outpaces natural comfort (47) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

Although its citywide rank is low (19th), it ranks highly among similar others (56th) — 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 (12.0 ha, 1 amenity types, frontage 0.5/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 29 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 14 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%

75.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 42 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 20 street intersections within 100 m; 37 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~1,483 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m17

Intersections within 100 m20

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)42

Transit stops (400 m)37

Estimated entrances8

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.15

Park perimeter1,483 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 (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

15% weightmeasured 75%

46.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 7.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~168 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.7/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage7.0%

Canopy area0.84 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)168 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon8

Tree density0.7 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)36.4

Sample points used230

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

26.9 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.3 m (~1 floors); 0.5 buildings per 100 m of 1,483 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m7

Buildings within 50 m7

Avg edge height4.3 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building9.2 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)6

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.47 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge14%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)84%

Park perimeter1,483 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Founders Road West Lot, rail, rail, Northwest Gate North Lot, Northwest Gate Lot, Northwest Gate South 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)

washroom

Nearby active-edge features (58)

transit stop0 m
retail0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village0 m
transit stop0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — 230 Ian Macdonald Boulevard0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop0 m
transit stop0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Station0 m
parking lot — Founders Road West Lot0 m
rail0 m
rail0 m
parking lot — Northwest Gate North Lot0 m
parking lot — Northwest Gate Lot0 m
parking lot — Northwest Gate South Lot0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue Stop #36946 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Northwest Gate East Side9 m
transit stop27 m
transit stop — 2700 Steeles Avenue West36 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Northwest Gate37 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue West at Founders Road51 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue West at Founders Road East Side52 m
parking lot — West Office Building Lot57 m
parking lot63 m
parking lot64 m
parking lot71 m
parking lot72 m
transit stop — Ian Macdonald Boulevard at Founders Road84 m
parking lot93 m
transit stop99 m
parking lot107 m
parking lot109 m
parking lot111 m
parking lot113 m
parking lot — Thompson Road East Lot136 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Terminal Platform 5143 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Terminal Platform 4150 m
parking lot — Founders Road East Visitors Lot150 m
parking lot150 m
retail — Pride Shop153 m
parking lot — Founders Road East Lot157 m
transit stop168 m
parking lot — Lumbers North Lot178 m
parking lot181 m
transit stop — Pioneer Village Terminal Platform 3186 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
19th
Edge activation
35th
Connectivity
96th
Amenity diversity
76th
Natural comfort
53th
Enclosure
3th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Lakeshore Boulevard ParklandsCorridor / Linear Park28
Six Points ParkTower-Community Green Space25
Beach SkateparkWaterfront Park25
Toronto Inukshuk ParkWaterfront Park23
Humber Bay Park WestWaterfront Park27

Most opposite parks

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

Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60

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 TORONTO TRACK AND FIELD CENTRE - 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.

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.
Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
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.