City Wide Open Space
Corridor / Linear Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 25, rank ~13th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
City Wide Open Space scores 25.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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.
Area · 1.91 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 25 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
Performance in context
- Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -11; cohort: medium Corridor / Linear Park).
Typology classification
Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.4× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (1.9 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop) and 9 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 29 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~1,162 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: ~15.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~424 m; 42 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (22.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. 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
99 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 99 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.0 m (~2 floors); 8.5 buildings per 100 m of 1,162 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West. 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 (21)
- transit stop — Eden Valley Drive5 m
- transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West8 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West19 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West20 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West20 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West20 m
- transit stop — Russell Road30 m
- transit stop — Islington Avenue35 m
- transit stop — Russell Road43 m
- transit stop — Islington Avenue46 m
- transit stop — 1738 Islington Avenue (Richview Collegiate)47 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West47 m
- transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West62 m
- parking lot72 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West73 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West95 m
- parking lot97 m
- parking lot133 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West135 m
- parking lot148 m
- highway — Eglinton Avenue West174 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality13th
- Edge activation10th
- Connectivity72th
- Amenity diversity15th
- Natural comfort59th
- Enclosure28th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park31
- East Highland Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park34
- Bratty ParkRavine / Naturalized Park36
- Public Access PropertyCorridor / Linear Park36
- Laurentide ParkCorridor / Linear Park30
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
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.
- 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.