Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Princess-Rosethorn (10)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Corridor / Linear Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 19, rank ~2th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 18.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 0.02 ha

Vitality Score

19/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

18.7 / 100

Citywide

2nd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

2nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Corridor / Linear Park (n=122)

Performance gap

-13

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 19 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 · p17

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p25

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Natural Comfort24 · p4

-3.9

Enclosure / Eyes on Park51 · p16

+0.1

Connectivity50 · p54

-0.1

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 doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by natural comfort (24, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (24, 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.

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (50) significantly outpaces natural comfort (24) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 19 vs an expected 32 (gap -13).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 23.9× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, cafe) and 10 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%

49.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,084 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2

Intersections within 100 m7

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)16

Transit stops (400 m)14

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.18

Park perimeter1,084 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% weightinferred 24%

24.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~754 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)754 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used0

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

50.9 / 100

14 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.3 m (~3 floors); 1.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,084 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 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m14

Buildings within 50 m14

Avg edge height8.3 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building12.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7

Low-rise (< 3 floors)7

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density1.29 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge50%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)57%

Park perimeter1,084 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: Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, 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 (33)

transit stop — Lloyd Manor Road14 m
transit stop — South side stop - Eglinton Avenue West22 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West26 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West30 m
parking lot31 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Road34 m
transit stop — Widdicombe Hill Boulevard43 m
cafe — Tim Hortons43 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West46 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West52 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West53 m
parking lot58 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West59 m
parking lot59 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West72 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Road73 m
transit stop — Winterton Drive84 m
parking lot101 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Eglinton Avenue West102 m
transit stop — Nottinghill Gate104 m
transit stop — North side stop - Eglinton Avenue West114 m
parking lot129 m
parking lot130 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West133 m
transit stop — 201 Lloyd Manor Rd - Lloyd Manor Place (Metro)143 m
retail — Q-Market155 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West157 m
cafe — Starbucks158 m
retail — Perfect 10 Nails & Spa160 m
retail — Cadet Cleaners168 m
retail — Classic Tan170 m
retail — Hunny Pot Cannabis172 m
parking lot183 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
2th
Edge activation
17th
Connectivity
54th
Amenity diversity
25th
Natural comfort
4th
Enclosure
16th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park19
City Wide Open SpaceTower-Community Green Space19
City Wide Open SpaceOther19
North York Hydro Green SpaceCorridor / Linear Park20
City Wide Open SpaceOther20

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Sir Winston Churchill ParkRavine / Naturalized Park69
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66

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.
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.