Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
North York Civic Soccer Fields, site photograph
Back to map
Civic Squarecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Westminster-Branson (35)confidence moderate

North York Civic Soccer Fields

Civic Square, above average overall (score 40, rank ~70th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

North York Civic Soccer Fields scores 39.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (1.3). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 16.42 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports fieldRunning track
Facilities
WashroomPicnic areaShelterCommunity centre
Vitality Score
40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
39.5 / 100
Citywide
70th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Civic Square
43rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
41
median in Civic Square (n=87)
Performance gap
-2
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 40 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 Activation1 · p64
-12.2
Connectivity65 · p84
+3.0
Natural Comfort35 · p20
-2.3
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Amenity Diversity43 · p94
-1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park59 · p38
+0.9

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

North York Civic Soccer Fields works because its amenity diversity score (43) is in the top tier and its connectivity (65) is also top quartile (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

North York Civic Soccer Fields is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile): only 1% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (43, top decile).

Jacobs reading

North York Civic Soccer Fields sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (65) significantly outpaces natural comfort (35): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (70th) but typology rank is more modest (43rd): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Civic Squarealso reads as Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Civic Square: name flags as civic square + 4.4 buildings per 100 m frontage. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 2.2× a circle of equal area).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
1.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) and 4 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%
64.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 13 mapped paths/walkways and 36 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 27 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 12 estimated access points across ~3,095 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)13
Sidewalk segments (50 m)36
Transit stops (400 m)27
Estimated entrances12
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.13
Park perimeter3,095 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
43.2 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, picnic, shelter, sports_field, track, washroom). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
34.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.5% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~392 m; 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.7/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.5%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)392 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon11
Tree density0.7 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)4.9
Sample points used183

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
59.4 / 100

135 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 131 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.5 m (~2 floors); 4.4 buildings per 100 m of 3,095 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m135
Buildings within 50 m135
Avg edge height6.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building23.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)4
Low-rise (< 3 floors)131
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density4.36 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge3%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter3,095 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that 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 (6 types · 16 records)

  • community centre
  • picnic
  • shelter
  • sports field
  • track
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (13)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot17 m
  • parking lot23 m
  • transit stop: Opposite 5720 Bathurst Street31 m
  • transit stop: 5720 Bathurst Street43 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • transit stop: Opposite 4981 Bathurst Street88 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • transit stop: 4979 Bathurst Street135 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • transit stop: 550 Finch Avenue West191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureNorth York Civic Soccer Fields
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    70th
  • Edge activation
    64th
  • Connectivity
    84th
  • Amenity diversity
    94th
  • Natural comfort
    20th
  • 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 North York Civic Soccer Fieldsmatters. 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
70%

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

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.