Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Participate
City Wide Open Space — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Scarborough Village (139)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Ravine / Naturalized Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 20, rank ~3th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 19.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:escape into nature

Area · 1.16 ha

Vitality Score
20/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
19.9 / 100
Citywide
3rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
3rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=213)
Performance gap
-16
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 20 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 · p2
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p4
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity33 · p23
-3.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park56 · p22
+0.6
Natural Comfort51 · p63
+0.2

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 natural comfort score (51) is middle of the pack (it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space 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 20 vs an expected 36 (gap -16).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 46% ravine overlap, 1% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (restaurant, retail, transit_stop) and 8 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%
33.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 4 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~483 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)4
Transit stops (400 m)10
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.21
Park perimeter483 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%
51.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 1.2% estimated tree canopy; 46.2% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~382 m; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.6/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.2%
Canopy area0.01 ha
Inside ravine system46.2%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)382 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon3
Tree density2.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)68.2
Sample points used80

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
56.0 / 100

20 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 19 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 6.2 m (~2 floors); 4.1 buildings per 100 m of 483 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 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m20
Buildings within 50 m20
Avg edge height6.2 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building40.4 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)19
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density4.14 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge5%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter483 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Markham Road, Markham Road, Markham Road, 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 (38)

  • restaurant — Masha'allah11 m
  • highway — Markham Road21 m
  • restaurant — Centro Pizza23 m
  • highway — Markham Road29 m
  • highway — Markham Road34 m
  • retail — Markham Convenience41 m
  • parking lot44 m
  • retail — Mirror Beauty Salon44 m
  • retail — Jaffna Tailors49 m
  • retail — Clean Sweep Coin Laundry54 m
  • highway — Markham Road55 m
  • restaurant — Tim Choi59 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Luella Street69 m
  • highway — Markham Road72 m
  • restaurant — Tropics Restaurant & Bar72 m
  • highway — Markham Road78 m
  • parking lot108 m
  • highway — Markham Road112 m
  • highway — Markham Road113 m
  • parking lot123 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Cougar Court124 m
  • retail — Janat Halal Meat131 m
  • rail — Kingston Subdivision132 m
  • rail — Kingston Subdivision133 m
  • rail — Kingston Subdivision133 m
  • restaurant — Best Kabab & Karahi136 m
  • highway — Markham Road137 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • retail — Style's Unisex Hair Salon142 m
  • retail — Bridal and Glamour Photo Studio146 m
  • restaurant — Salam Halal Pizza & Chicken152 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • parking lot153 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • retail — Soft Touch Cleaners175 m
  • parking lot185 m
  • highway — Markham Road197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    3th
  • Edge activation
    2th
  • Connectivity
    23th
  • Amenity diversity
    4th
  • Natural comfort
    63th
  • Enclosure
    22th

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 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.

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.
  • 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.