Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Ames Park — site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksBanbury-Don Mills (42)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Ames Park

Corridor / Linear Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~75th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Ames Park scores 39.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 3.19 ha

Vitality Score
40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
39.9 / 100
Citywide
75th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
77th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)
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 40 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 Activation16 · p74
-8.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p75
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p38
+1.1
Natural Comfort49 · p58
-0.1
Connectivity50 · p55
+0.0

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

Ames Park works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its edge activation (16) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Ames Park doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (12, above-average).

Jacobs reading

Ames 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 (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 16) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.4× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (3.2 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
16.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) and 3 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%
50.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,509 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)25
Transit stops (400 m)7
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.33
Park perimeter1,509 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 (playground). 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%
49.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~11.0% effective canopy (9.7% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~882 m; 50 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (15.7/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 coverage9.7%
Canopy area0.31 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)882 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon50
Tree density15.7 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)46.0
Sample points used103

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.7 / 100

140 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 139 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.4 m (~2 floors); 9.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,509 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m140
Buildings within 50 m140
Avg edge height5.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)139
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density9.28 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge1%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,509 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (11)

  • transit stop — Chipstead Road4 m
  • transit stop — Banbury Road6 m
  • transit stop — Banbury Road33 m
  • transit stop — Banbury Road55 m
  • parking lot61 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • transit stop — Sandfield Road167 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureAmes Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    75th
  • Edge activation
    74th
  • Connectivity
    55th
  • Amenity diversity
    75th
  • Natural comfort
    58th
  • Enclosure
    38th

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 Ames 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.

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.