Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksYork University Heights (27)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Corridor / Linear Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~81th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 41.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: edge activation and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). 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 · 0.99 ha

Vitality Score

42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

41.5 / 100

Citywide

81st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

83rd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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 Diversity0 · p11

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort37 · p31

-1.9

Enclosure / Eyes on Park36 · p7

-1.4

Connectivity46 · p47

-0.7

Edge Activation52 · p96

+0.5

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

City Wide Open Space works because its edge activation score (52) is one of the city's strongest (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by enclosure (36, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (52, top decile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space 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 corridor / linear park typology (+9 vs the median in small Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.3× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

52.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop, retail) 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%

46.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 28 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~812 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m2

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)12

Transit stops (400 m)28

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.49

Park perimeter812 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% weightmeasured 75%

37.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 3.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1213 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage3.1%

Canopy area0.03 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)1,213 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)19.8

Sample points used65

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

36.1 / 100

6 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 5 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.6 m (~2 floors); 0.7 buildings per 100 m of 812 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m6

Buildings within 50 m6

Avg edge height6.6 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building11.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)5

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.74 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge17%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)75%

Park perimeter812 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (29)

transit stop — Grandravine Drive9 m
transit stop — Grandravine Drive31 m
transit stop — Tuscan Gate at St Regis Crescent (South) South Side41 m
retail — Keele Medical Pharmacy49 m
transit stop — Grandravine Dr at Keele St67 m
transit stop — Grandravine Dr at Keele St69 m
transit stop — Tuscan Gate at Sheppard Avenue West72 m
transit stop — Tuscan Gate at St Regis Crescent South79 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue West at Tuscan Gate88 m
parking lot97 m
retail — Good Fellow's Auto Wholesalers113 m
parking lot128 m
parking lot132 m
retail — P&S Furniture133 m
transit stop — Tuscan Gate134 m
parking lot143 m
parking lot154 m
transit stop156 m
parking lot163 m
parking lot166 m
restaurant — Piccola Citta169 m
parking lot170 m
retail — Bargain Club171 m
retail — Pop's Cannabis Co.177 m
retail — LCBO180 m
retail — No Frills183 m
parking lot192 m
parking lot194 m
retail — Luma Care198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
81th
Edge activation
96th
Connectivity
47th
Amenity diversity
11th
Natural comfort
31th
Enclosure
7th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceWaterfront Park40
Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceOther41
Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceOther38
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park41
City Wide Open SpaceOther35

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

High ParkRavine / Naturalized Park47
Ramsden ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Earlscourt ParkNeighbourhood Park44
Withrow ParkNeighbourhood Park50
Christie Pits ParkRavine / Naturalized Park44

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 City Wide Open Spacematters. 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.

What would improve this park?

Generated from the weakest measured dimensions — a starting point, not a prescription.

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.
Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

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.