Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Eringate-Centennial-West Deane (11)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Corridor / Linear Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 26, rank ~14th 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 25.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort 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 · 0.67 ha

Vitality Score

26/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

25.5 / 100

Citywide

14th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

20th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)

Performance gap

-7

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest underperformer

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 · p12

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p18

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Connectivity57 · p69

+1.4

Natural Comfort59 · p73

+1.3

Enclosure / Eyes on Park52 · p17

+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 (59) is above average and its connectivity (57) is also above-average (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

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -7; cohort: small Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.5× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 11 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%

57.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~713 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m6

Paths/walkways (50 m)4

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)17

Estimated entrances4

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.56

Park perimeter713 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%

58.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 8.5% estimated tree canopy; 34.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~152 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.0/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 coverage8.5%

Canopy area0.06 ha

Inside ravine system34.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)152 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon5

Tree density5.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)81.5

Sample points used47

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

52.0 / 100

27 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 27 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.3 m (~1 floors); 3.8 buildings per 100 m of 713 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.

Buildings within 25 m27

Buildings within 50 m27

Avg edge height4.3 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building6.4 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)27

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density3.79 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter713 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, parking_lot, 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

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 (20)

highway — Eglinton Avenue West0 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West0 m
parking lot15 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West25 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West34 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West39 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West45 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West52 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West57 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West64 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West85 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West104 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West114 m
transit stop — The East Mall137 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West139 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West152 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West163 m
parking lot166 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West198 m
transit stop — The East Mall198 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
12th
Connectivity
69th
Amenity diversity
18th
Natural comfort
73th
Enclosure
17th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Lambton Golf And Country ClubRavine / Naturalized Park29
East Highland Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park31
Scarlett Woods Golf CourseRavine / Naturalized Park26
North York Hydro Green SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park35
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park29

Most opposite parks

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

Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
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.
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.