Public Access Property
Urban Plaza, below average overall (score 28, rank ~22th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Public Access Property scores 27.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.08 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 28 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- The park is enclosed by buildings (89) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 8) — frame without animation.
Performance in context
- Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -9; cohort: pocket Urban Plaza).
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 826 m², paved (0% canopy), 14.4 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (school, transit_stop, community) and 4 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~160 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~657 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
23 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 14 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 12.1 m (~4 floors); 14.4 buildings per 100 m of 160 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Church & Taylor Place Parking, Reserved Parking, Thompson House Parking. 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
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 (26)
- parking lot — Thompson House Parking6 m
- parking lot — Reserved Parking9 m
- parking lot — Church & Taylor Place Parking50 m
- community — Better Living Community Centre54 m
- school — Seneca Hill Private School56 m
- transit stop — 1 Overland Dr at Taylor Place65 m
- transit stop — The Donway West at Clock Tower Rd North Side92 m
- parking lot99 m
- parking lot105 m
- parking lot106 m
- transit stop — The Donway West at Clock Tower Rd North Side117 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons138 m
- parking lot141 m
- transit stop — Overland Dr at Paperbirch Drive (East) East Side143 m
- transit stop — Barber Greene Rd at Paperbirch Drive East152 m
- retail — Anthropologie152 m
- retail — Hazukido156 m
- restaurant — Mantra by Host164 m
- restaurant — Nomé Izakaya170 m
- retail — L.L.Bean172 m
- parking lot174 m
- restaurant — Taylor's Landing181 m
- transit stop — 1050 Don Mills Rd - Shops On Don Mills182 m
- restaurant — Anejo191 m
- restaurant — Bier Markt198 m
- parking lot200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality22th
- Edge activation67th
- Connectivity26th
- Amenity diversity8th
- Natural comfort5th
- Enclosure95th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- David A. Balfour ParkUrban Plaza30
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza30
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza29
- Mimico Waterfront ParkWaterfront Park29
- Public Access PropertyCorridor / Linear Park31
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
- Toronto ZooWaterfront Park57
- Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
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 Public Access Propertymatters. 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.
- 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.
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.