Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
City Wide Open Space — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Junction Area (90)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Parkette, near the bottom of the city overall (score 21, rank ~4th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 20.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (66). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.25 ha

Vitality Score
21/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 52%

Data Confidence
20.8 / 100
Citywide
4th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
1st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Parkette (n=287)
Performance gap
-11
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 21 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
Natural Comfort24 · p5
-3.9
Connectivity38 · p32
-2.3
Border Vacuum Risk66 (risk)
-1.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p38
+1.1

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 enclosure, 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 (66).

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

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -11; cohort: pocket Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (2476 m²) with strong building frontage (9.3 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 7 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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% weightpartial 65%
38.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~345 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)22
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.45
Park perimeter345 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%
24.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~726 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)726 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.7 / 100

32 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 32 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.8 m (~2 floors); 9.3 buildings per 100 m of 345 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 m32
Buildings within 50 m32
Avg edge height5.8 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building7.6 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)32
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density9.27 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter345 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
66.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: rail, rail, parking_lot, rail. 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 (54)

  • parking lot0 m
  • rail11 m
  • rail17 m
  • rail25 m
  • rail86 m
  • rail — Galt Subdivision89 m
  • rail — Galt Subdivision96 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • retail — A&I Automotive Inc.129 m
  • transit stop — St. Clair Avenue West138 m
  • transit stop — Maria Street138 m
  • retail — Admiral Automotive Service & Tire Centre140 m
  • restaurant — Jumbo Burgers147 m
  • transit stop155 m
  • transit stop — Runnymede Loop156 m
  • parking lot162 m
  • retail — Fairstone Financial166 m
  • transit stop — St. Clair Avenue West168 m
  • retail — Auto Moon168 m
  • restaurant — Las San Sivar169 m
  • retail — King of Fades Barbers170 m
  • rail — Galt Subdivision170 m
  • retail — GameStop172 m
  • retail — Atlantis Nails Art172 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • transit stop — Dundas Street West175 m
  • restaurant — The Palms Jerk & Grill175 m
  • retail — Anti-Oxidant Water Shop175 m
  • retail — St. Clair Cannabis176 m
  • retail — Metro Vehicles178 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • transit stop — St. Clair Avenue W at Runnymede Rd178 m
  • parking lot179 m
  • retail — Ahon Auto Parts180 m
  • retail — Rally Auto Repair184 m
  • retail — Sunny Side Pup Dog Grooming186 m
  • retail — Hair Braiding Koo By Chantou187 m
  • retail — Wholesale Meat187 m
  • retail — Melo Automotive188 m
  • retail — San Jose Mexican Foods189 m
  • restaurant — Indilicious190 m
  • transit stop — Dundas St W at Runnymede Rd190 m
  • retail191 m
  • retail — Jansu Jan Designer Studio191 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • transit stop — Dundas St W at Runnymede Rd194 m
  • retail — I’m194 m
  • retail — Eagle Autowerks196 m
  • cafe — Comic Tea198 m
  • retail — Auto Collisions 7198 m
  • retail — Mister Vapor198 m
  • retail — Rocky Convenience198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    4th
  • Edge activation
    12th
  • Connectivity
    32th
  • Amenity diversity
    18th
  • Natural comfort
    5th
  • Enclosure
    38th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Most opposite parks

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

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.

Rate this park on as many dimensions as you have an opinion about. 1 = not at all · 5 = strongly. Skip the ones you don't feel sure about. Aggregated only — no comments stored at the row level.

feels socially active
feels comfortable
feels safe
feels connected
feels welcoming
feels ecological / natural
feels good for lingering
feels family-friendly
feels culturally important

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.