Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
ANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Westminster-Branson (35)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

ANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 39, rank ~70th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

ANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 38.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 0.93 ha

Vitality Score
39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
38.8 / 100
Citywide
70th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
22nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)
Performance gap
-3
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 39 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 · p33
-12.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p94
-4.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park78 · p80
+2.8
Connectivity63 · p79
+2.7
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Natural Comfort42 · p42
-1.2

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

ANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (28) is in the top tier and its enclosure (78) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

ANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by edge activation (0, below-average)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

ANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds 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.
  • 8 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy — passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (70th) but typology rank is more modest (22nd) — the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 67% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, tennis)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop, retail) 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%
63.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~397 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)25
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.26
Park perimeter397 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, playground, tennis). 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%
42.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 4.5% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~400 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage4.5%
Canopy area0.04 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)400 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon4
Tree density4.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)26.7
Sample points used66

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
77.6 / 100

72 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 63 low-rise, 8 tower); avg edge height 12.0 m (~4 floors); 18.1 buildings per 100 m of 397 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 8 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m72
Buildings within 50 m72
Avg edge height12.0 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building79.7 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)63
Towers (≥ 13 floors)8
Frontage density18.13 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge1%
Tower share of edge11%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter397 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (3 types · 4 records)

  • basketball
  • playground
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (30)

  • retail — Outdoor Table Tennis0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot33 m
  • transit stop — Antibes Drive at Plum Treeway43 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot62 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • transit stop — Antibes Drive at Bathurst Street106 m
  • transit stop — Bathurst Street at Antibes Drive118 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • transit stop — Drewry Avenue Opposite 100 Antibes Drive123 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • transit stop — Antibes Drive at Candle Liteway132 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • transit stop — Bathurst Street at Drewry Avenue150 m
  • transit stop — Drewry Avenue at Bathurst Street154 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • transit stop — Antibes Drive at Torresdale Ave166 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons180 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • parking lot188 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureANTIBES COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    70th
  • Edge activation
    33th
  • Connectivity
    79th
  • Amenity diversity
    94th
  • Natural comfort
    42th
  • Enclosure
    80th

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 ANTIBES COMMUNITY 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.