Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)L'Amoreaux (117)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~44th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 32.9 / 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 for:daily urban life

Area · 2.02 ha

Vitality Score
33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
32.9 / 100
Citywide
44th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
30th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
-5
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 33 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 · p30
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p74
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort34 · p19
-2.4
Connectivity54 · p63
+0.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park57 · p24
+0.7

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

CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its connectivity (54) is also above-average.

What limits this park

CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (34, bottom quartile)— only 1% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (34, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.0 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 4 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%
54.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 20 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~578 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)20
Transit stops (400 m)15
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.86
Park perimeter578 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% weightmeasured 75%
34.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.7% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~961 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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 coverage0.7%
Canopy area0.01 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)961 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon4
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)6.1
Sample points used141

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
57.1 / 100

33 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 33 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.4 m (~2 floors); 5.7 buildings per 100 m of 578 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m33
Buildings within 50 m33
Avg edge height5.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building7.7 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)33
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.71 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter578 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (14)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • transit stop — 3200 Phamarcy Avenue104 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • transit stop — Opposite 3200 Pharmacy Avenue124 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Morecambe Gate161 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Pawnee Avenue178 m
  • transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Pawnee Avenue179 m
  • parking lot181 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    44th
  • Edge activation
    30th
  • Connectivity
    63th
  • Amenity diversity
    74th
  • Natural comfort
    19th
  • Enclosure
    24th

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 CHESTER LE JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - 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.

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.