Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Kingsview Village-The Westway (6)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 26, rank ~14th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 25.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.20 ha

Vitality Score

26/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence

25.5 / 100

Citywide

14th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

48th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Other (n=27)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence medium

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 26 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 · p6

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p9

-10.0

Connectivity20 · p9

-6.0

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Enclosure / Eyes on Park68 · p65

+1.8

Natural Comfort47 · p54

-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 enclosure score (68) is middle of the pack (1 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

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.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (47) significantly outpaces connectivity (20) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
The park is enclosed by buildings (68) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Although its citywide rank is low (14th), it ranks highly among similar others (48th) — strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%

Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.2 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 2.9/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 2 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%

20.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 1 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~240 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m2

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)1

Transit stops (400 m)8

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter240 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% weightpartial 60%

47.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 7.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~118 m. Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage7.1%

Canopy area0.01 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)118 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)37.1

Sample points used14

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

68.0 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 5 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 15.0 m (~5 floors); 2.9 buildings per 100 m of 240 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m7

Buildings within 50 m7

Avg edge height15.0 m (~5 floors)

Tallest edge building69.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)5

Towers (≥ 13 floors)1

Frontage density2.92 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge14%

Tower share of edge14%

Blank-edge share (proxy)3%

Park perimeter240 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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 (13)

parking lot31 m
parking lot49 m
parking lot101 m
parking lot110 m
parking lot122 m
transit stop — Dixon Rd at Chetta Pl126 m
parking lot135 m
parking lot143 m
parking lot163 m
parking lot167 m
parking lot170 m
parking lot177 m
transit stop — Dixon Rd at Wincott Dr194 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
14th
Edge activation
6th
Connectivity
9th
Amenity diversity
9th
Natural comfort
54th
Enclosure
65th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceWaterfront Park28
Islington Heights ParkParkette28
Pinery ParkParkette28
Public Access PropertyRavine / Naturalized Park27
Lawrence Heights Middle School GreenParkette27

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63

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.

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.

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.