Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Mimico (includes Humber Bay Shores) (17)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Urban Plaza, near the bottom of the city overall (score 24, rank ~8th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 23.5 / 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:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.17 ha

Vitality Score

24/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence

23.5 / 100

Citywide

8th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

2nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

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 24 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 · p10

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p15

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Natural Comfort34 · p17

-2.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park71 · p71

+2.1

Connectivity57 · p68

+1.3

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 enclosure score (71) is above average and its connectivity (57) is also above-average.

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

Tradeoffs

The park is enclosed by buildings (71) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 24 vs an expected 36 (gap -13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1688 m², paved (0% canopy), 7.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 20 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% weightmeasured 85%

56.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~241 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)12

Transit stops (400 m)13

Estimated entrances2

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.66

Park perimeter241 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 36%

33.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1013 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. 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)1,013 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density2.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used12

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

71.3 / 100

17 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 16 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 9.7 m (~3 floors); 7.0 buildings per 100 m of 241 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m17

Buildings within 50 m17

Avg edge height9.7 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building81.2 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)16

Towers (≥ 13 floors)1

Frontage density7.04 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge6%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter241 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: Oakville Subdivision, rail, Metrolinx Oakville Subdivision, parking_lot, Oakville Subdivision, rail, Oakville Subdivision, rail, Oakville Subdivision, rail, rail, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision. 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 (50)

rail13 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision14 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision16 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision19 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision26 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision27 m
rail — Metrolinx Oakville Subdivision28 m
rail30 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision30 m
parking lot35 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision36 m
rail38 m
transit stop — Mimico42 m
rail44 m
rail — Oakville Subdivision44 m
rail48 m
transit stop — Mimico48 m
rail62 m
retail — Shop 'N Go77 m
rail80 m
restaurant — Frecles Fox Restaurant83 m
rail84 m
parking lot91 m
rail95 m
retail — R&P Royal Gas & Convenience100 m
transit stop — Newcastle Street104 m
transit stop — Cavell Avenue107 m
parking lot108 m
retail — Walsh's Auto Collision113 m
rail114 m
parking lot117 m
transit stop135 m
parking lot135 m
retail — Tony's Flooring Centre139 m
transit stop — Newcastle Street147 m
transit stop — Royal York Ave at Newcastle St158 m
transit stop — Newcastle Street163 m
rail169 m
rail169 m
parking lot170 m
rail173 m
retail178 m
rail184 m
restaurant — Poseidon Plates186 m
retail — PetLuv Grooming187 m
parking lot191 m
retail — Mike's Auto192 m
restaurant — Royal Mimico Pub & Grill194 m
parking lot194 m
rail198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
8th
Edge activation
10th
Connectivity
68th
Amenity diversity
15th
Natural comfort
17th
Enclosure
71th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Gaffney ParkRavine / Naturalized Park34
Humber Bay Promenade ParkCorridor / Linear Park25
Cedarvale RavineRavine / Naturalized Park35
Booth YardNeighbourhood Park26
Oates ParkUrban Plaza34

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
Toronto ZooWaterfront Park57
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49

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 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.