Urban Plazacluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksIslington-City Centre West (14)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

ISLINGTON SENIORS' CENTRE - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~62th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

ISLINGTON SENIORS' CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 36.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.11 ha

Vitality Score

37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence

36.7 / 100

Citywide

62nd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

49th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

Performance gap

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 37 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

Amenity Diversity12 · p71

-7.6

Edge Activation28 · p86

-5.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park80 · p83

+3.0

Connectivity38 · p31

-2.4

Natural Comfort36 · p26

-2.1

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

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

ISLINGTON SENIORS' CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (28) is in the top tier and its enclosure (80) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

ISLINGTON SENIORS' CENTRE - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (28, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

ISLINGTON SENIORS' CENTRE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1105 m², paved (0% canopy), 20.4 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

28.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 19 active uses (restaurant, retail, community) and 6 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%

37.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~137 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small 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)2

Transit stops (400 m)17

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.73

Park perimeter137 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 (community_centre). 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 36%

35.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~251 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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)251 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density2.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used13

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

79.9 / 100

28 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 24 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.0 m (~2 floors); 20.4 buildings per 100 m of 137 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 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m28

Buildings within 50 m28

Avg edge height7.0 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building18.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)4

Low-rise (< 3 floors)24

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density20.44 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge14%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter137 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 (1 types · 1 records)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (56)

community — Islington Seniors Centre0 m
retail — Coconut Grove Nail And Esthetic Boutique5 m
retail10 m
retail — Seniors Store17 m
parking lot18 m
parking lot21 m
retail — Twin Scissors Hair & Spa23 m
retail — Morning Flower27 m
parking lot27 m
retail — Bella Babe Beauty Bar32 m
retail — Espresso Bakery & Deli32 m
retail — Village Paint & Wallpaper37 m
retail — Freedom Mobile43 m
restaurant — Pizza Depot49 m
retail — 8hade8 of Nude849 m
retail — Vape4Change51 m
restaurant — Insadong55 m
parking lot56 m
retail — Manipura Massage Therapy & Wellness60 m
retail — Lemurian Skin & Soul64 m
parking lot64 m
retail — Elite Barber’s & Salon66 m
retail — Edwards Builders Hardware76 m
parking lot90 m
retail — Traditional Korean Bakery97 m
retail — Royal Custom Cleaners108 m
transit stop114 m
parking lot118 m
parking lot120 m
restaurant — Subway120 m
retail — Toronto Wax122 m
retail — Scarlett Lashettes Studio123 m
restaurant — Kibo Sushi126 m
transit stop126 m
restaurant — Pizzeria Via Napoli132 m
retail — Neighbour's Fine Foods146 m
retail — Sejin Travel Ltd147 m
transit stop — Cordova Ave at Dundas St W155 m
transit stop — Burnhamthorpe Rd at Dundas St W162 m
parking lot162 m
transit stop — Cordova Ave at Dundas St W169 m
restaurant — Thai Jalearn171 m
retail — GameHoard177 m
parking lot180 m
school — Filipok Russian Junior School180 m
transit stop — Burnhamthorpe Road at Burnhamthorpe Crescent181 m
retail — Bravo! Hearing Centre184 m
restaurant — Fire Wing’s Bar & Grill187 m
restaurant — Mai Bistro189 m
parking lot190 m
parking lot193 m
retail — Valentina Shoe Repair193 m
school — German International School Toronto194 m
parking lot194 m
restaurant — Sorsi E Morsi Trattoria197 m
transit stop — Burnhamthorpe Road at Burnhamthorpe Crescent199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
62th
Edge activation
86th
Connectivity
31th
Amenity diversity
71th
Natural comfort
26th
Enclosure
83th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park35
Ridgewood ParketteUrban Plaza39
Heart ParkUrban Plaza38
City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza39
Warrender ParkUrban Plaza38

Most opposite parks

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

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26

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 ISLINGTON SENIORS' 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.
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.
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.