Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Centre Park — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Newtonbrook East (50)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Centre Park

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~63th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Centre Park scores 36.9 / 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:daily urban life

Area · 1.16 ha

Vitality Score
37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
36.9 / 100
Citywide
63rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
49th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
-1
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
Edge Activation0 · p34
-12.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p88
-5.8
Connectivity62 · p77
+2.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p61
+1.6
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Natural Comfort48 · p56
-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

Centre Park works because its amenity diversity score (21) is in the top tier and its connectivity (62) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Centre Park 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 (21, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Centre 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 (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.2 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 1 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 17 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 10 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
62.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~434 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.38
Park perimeter434 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field). 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%
48.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~10.8% effective canopy (6.2% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~804 m; 18 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (15.5/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 coverage6.2%
Canopy area0.07 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)804 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon18
Tree density15.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)33.4
Sample points used81

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.0 / 100

45 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 43 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 6.8 m (~2 floors); 10.4 buildings per 100 m of 434 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m45
Buildings within 50 m45
Avg edge height6.8 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building54.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)43
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density10.36 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge2%
Tower share of edge2%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter434 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 (2 types · 2 records)

  • playground
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (63)

  • parking lot11 m
  • retail — PARS Food27 m
  • retail — World of Jewelery27 m
  • cafe — Papa Pastry Cafe27 m
  • retail — Arzon Super Market28 m
  • restaurant — Yummi's28 m
  • restaurant — Altona Kebob28 m
  • retail — PARS Art Gallery28 m
  • retail — Florien Arts Florist28 m
  • cafe — B.B. Cafe29 m
  • retail — Tartook Jewelry33 m
  • parking lot39 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • retail — Hair Art48 m
  • retail — Khorak Supermarket51 m
  • parking lot53 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street / Centre Avenue54 m
  • highway — Yonge Street71 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street / Homewood Avenue78 m
  • highway — Yonge Street78 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • restaurant — Popeyes89 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street at Patricia Avenue91 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street at Patricia Avenue91 m
  • retail — Pizza Pizza101 m
  • highway — Yonge Street101 m
  • parking lot105 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • retail — Fido113 m
  • parking lot114 m
  • retail — Look So Good115 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • highway — Yonge Street123 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • retail — Viola Laser and Skin Care Clinic128 m
  • retail — The UPS Store129 m
  • restaurant — Katsuya132 m
  • cafe — Coffee Lunar132 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • restaurant — Pizzamaru135 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • retail — Convenient Store140 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • restaurant — Daldongnae149 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Hut Express152 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street / Connaught Avenue160 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • retail161 m
  • restaurant162 m
  • restaurant — Torch Sushi162 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons166 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • retail — Superior Home Systems170 m
  • retail176 m
  • retail184 m
  • parking lot187 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCentre Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    63th
  • Edge activation
    34th
  • Connectivity
    77th
  • Amenity diversity
    88th
  • Natural comfort
    56th
  • Enclosure
    61th

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 Centre 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

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.