Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Syd Cole Park — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksLong Branch (19)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Syd Cole Park

Parkette, above average overall (score 43, rank ~85th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Mihai Nicula via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Syd Cole Park scores 42.9 / 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.30 ha

Vitality Score
43/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
42.9 / 100
Citywide
85th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
89th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
+7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

Syd Cole Park — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 43 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 · p81
-7.6
Edge Activation32 · p88
-4.5
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort36 · p27
-2.1
Connectivity59 · p73
+1.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p55
+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

Syd Cole Park works because its edge activation score (32) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Syd Cole Park is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (32, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Syd Cole Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+7 vs the median in small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (2999 m²) with strong building frontage (5.9 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (retail, restaurant) and 1 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%
59.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 18 mapped paths/walkways and 4 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~220 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)18
Sidewalk segments (50 m)4
Transit stops (400 m)10
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.45
Park perimeter220 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% weightinferred 36%
36.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~812 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.0/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)812 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon4
Tree density4.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used21

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.2 / 100

13 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 11 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.1 m (~2 floors); 5.9 buildings per 100 m of 220 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m13
Buildings within 50 m13
Avg edge height5.1 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building17.4 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)11
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.90 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge15%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter220 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)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (44)

  • parking lot37 m
  • restaurant — Pita Pit60 m
  • restaurant — Little Caesars60 m
  • retail — The Beer Store66 m
  • restaurant — Hero Certified Burgers85 m
  • retail — Pet Valu103 m
  • transit stop — Long Branch Avenue105 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West105 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West106 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • transit stop — Long Branch Avenue118 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West124 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West125 m
  • retail — Jaja Spa128 m
  • retail — K&M Barber Shop129 m
  • restaurant — George the Greek133 m
  • retail — Viva Skin Clinic133 m
  • retail — Long Branch Village Mart136 m
  • retail — Jackpot Cannabis137 m
  • restaurant — Food Mantra144 m
  • retail — 3 for 1 Glasses145 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • retail — Pedi N Nails147 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • restaurant — Sloppy Joe's151 m
  • restaurant — Long Branch Social House152 m
  • retail — Peter’s Bakery & Delicatessen154 m
  • parking lot155 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West155 m
  • retail162 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • retail — Tolo Clothier163 m
  • retail — Salon Karin166 m
  • retail — Total Sports Cards & Collectables168 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision170 m
  • retail — Princess Nails and Spa172 m
  • rail173 m
  • retail — Joan's Blooming Place176 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • retail — Sense of Hearing Hearing Clinic181 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSyd Cole Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    85th
  • Edge activation
    88th
  • Connectivity
    73th
  • Amenity diversity
    81th
  • Natural comfort
    27th
  • Enclosure
    55th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score
51/ 100
50.7 / 100

p68 citywide · p72 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)10
Density / ha66
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
57
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.96 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

Human activity signals

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 50%
Overall activity
9/ 100
9.0 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
14real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
29unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Syd Cole 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.