Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Annex (95)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Jesse Ketchum Park

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~64th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Jesse Ketchum Park scores 37.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.07 ha

Vitality Score

37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

37.2 / 100

Citywide

64th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

51st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 37 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 Activation9 · p68

-10.3

Amenity Diversity0 · p14

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park97 · p100

+4.7

Natural Comfort23 · p1

-4.1

Connectivity59 · p72

+1.8

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

Jesse Ketchum Park works because its enclosure score (97) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (59) is also above-average (33 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Jesse Ketchum Park is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (97, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Jesse Ketchum Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (59) significantly outpaces natural comfort (23) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
The park is enclosed by buildings (97) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 9) — frame without animation.
Strong physical conditions (score 37) but weak observed activity signals (10) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 730 m², paved (0% canopy), 61.9 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

9.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) 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%

59.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 14 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 26 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~110 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m12

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)14

Transit stops (400 m)26

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter6.37

Park perimeter110 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%

22.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1192 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)1,192 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

97.2 / 100

68 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (33 mid-rise, 32 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 13.8 m (~5 floors); 61.9 buildings per 100 m of 110 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 33 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m68

Buildings within 50 m68

Avg edge height13.8 m (~5 floors)

Tallest edge building85.4 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)33

Low-rise (< 3 floors)32

Towers (≥ 13 floors)3

Frontage density61.87 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge49%

Tower share of edge4%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter110 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (18)

transit stop — Bay Street33 m
parking lot78 m
parking lot86 m
transit stop — Davenport Road91 m
parking lot109 m
retail — Beloved Tan129 m
transit stop — Belmont Street145 m
parking lot147 m
parking lot152 m
parking lot156 m
transit stop — New Street173 m
retail — Piquadro174 m
parking lot174 m
parking lot178 m
retail — Royal Dry Cleaners179 m
retail — The Anti-Aging Shop180 m
retail — The Noble Society196 m
parking lot197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
64th
Edge activation
68th
Connectivity
72th
Amenity diversity
14th
Natural comfort
1th
Enclosure
100th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Euclid Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza32
Dunn Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza34
Percy ParkUrban Plaza34
Belmont ParketteUrban Plaza39
Yorkminster Park Baptist Church ParkCorridor / Linear Park26

Most opposite parks

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

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26

Human activity signals

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 35%

Overall activity

10/ 100

9.9 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8unknown

Temporal rhythm

13unknown

Pedestrian / cycling flow

24real

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 18.1/100; cycling/trail 30.2/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Jesse Ketchum Parkmatters. 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.

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.