Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Alness Yard — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)York University Heights (27)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Alness Yard

Neighbourhood Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 23, rank ~8th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: enclosure.

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

Alness Yard scores 23.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 4.12 ha

Vitality Score
23/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
23.2 / 100
Citywide
8th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
3rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
-14
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 23 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 Diversity0 · p40
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)
-2.2
Connectivity41 · p36
-1.8
Natural Comfort43 · p43
-1.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park58 · p26
+0.8

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

Alness Yard doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is natural comfort, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

Alness Yard is held back by enclosure (58, below-average); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (72).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (58, below-average).

Jacobs reading

Alness Yard is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 23 vs an expected 37 (gap -14).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 4.1 ha, framed by 3 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 18 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant) and 11 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%
40.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~870 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)21
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.12
Park perimeter870 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
42.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~467 m; 45 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.9/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)467 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon45
Tree density10.9 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used277

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
57.9 / 100

19 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 16 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.7 m (~3 floors); 2.2 buildings per 100 m of 870 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m19
Buildings within 50 m19
Avg edge height8.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building36.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)16
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.19 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge16%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)27%
Park perimeter870 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (50)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — Finch Avenue at Alness Road3 m
  • parking lot18 m
  • transit stop — Alness Road at Finch Avenue23 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • retail — Money Mart33 m
  • restaurant — Wraps & Jerk39 m
  • restaurant — Mr. Greek44 m
  • restaurant — Don Franchesko44 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • transit stop — Alness Street at York University Busway49 m
  • transit stop — Alness Street at York University Busway51 m
  • retail57 m
  • transit stop — Finch Avenue West at Champagne Drive57 m
  • retail — Cash 4 You61 m
  • restaurant — Euro Shawarma63 m
  • transit stop — Champagne Drive at Finch Avenue64 m
  • restaurant — Joong Wha Ru65 m
  • retail — Flooring Depot66 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • retail — Downsview Outlet Variety Store75 m
  • restaurant — Village House Turkish Restaurant80 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • restaurant — L&P Village Green Jamaican Restaurant99 m
  • restaurant — Suq Mediterranean Kitchen106 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • restaurant — Mandarin124 m
  • retail — North York Kia139 m
  • retail — North Toronto Tire140 m
  • retail — Fred's Bread147 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • parking lot175 m
  • parking lot175 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • transit stop — Finch Avenue at Dufferin Street176 m
  • retail — Dufferin/Finch Auto Sales181 m
  • restaurant — Eisenberg’s Sandwich Co.181 m
  • retail183 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • transit stop — Dufferin Street at Finch Avenue West North Side197 m
  • transit stop198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureAlness Yard

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    8th
  • Edge activation
    33th
  • Connectivity
    36th
  • Amenity diversity
    40th
  • Natural comfort
    43th
  • Enclosure
    26th

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 Alness Yardmatters. 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.
  • 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.