Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Mondeo Park, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Dorset Park (126)confidence moderate

Mondeo Park

Parkette, above average overall (score 44, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Mondeo Park scores 43.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.78 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Drinking waterPicnic areaShelter
Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
43.7 / 100
Citywide
83rd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
88th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=247)
Performance gap
+7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 44 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 · p36
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Amenity Diversity32 · p85
-3.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park78 · p82
+2.8
Connectivity61 · p78
+2.2
Natural Comfort48 · p53
-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

Mondeo Park works because its amenity diversity score (32) is above average and its enclosure (78) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Mondeo Park doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (32, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Mondeo 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 (78) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+7 vs the median in small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (7806 m²) with strong building frontage (20.8 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 1 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%
61.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~418 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m11
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)10
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.72
Park perimeter418 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
32.3 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, drinking_water, picnic, shelter). 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% weightpartial 45%
47.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~13.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~480 m; 19 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (19.0/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)480 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon19
Tree density19.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used56

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
78.3 / 100

87 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 78 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 20.8 buildings per 100 m of 418 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m87
Buildings within 50 m87
Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)78
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density20.80 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge10%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter418 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 (4 types · 6 records)

  • playground
  • drinking water
  • picnic
  • shelter

Nearby active-edge features (15)

  • parking lot98 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • parking lot123 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • parking lot155 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • transit stop: Ellesmere Rd at Mondeo Dr168 m
  • transit stop: Opposite 1792 Birchmount Road168 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • transit stop: 1792 Birchmount Road191 m
  • transit stop193 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Rolark Drive199 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMondeo Park
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    83th
  • Edge activation
    36th
  • Connectivity
    78th
  • Amenity diversity
    85th
  • Natural comfort
    53th
  • Enclosure
    82th

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 Mondeo 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.

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
70%

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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.