Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Malvern (132)confidence moderate

Rosebank Park

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Ari Sooriya via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Rosebank Park scores 48.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (24.7). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 4.35 ha

Vitality Score

48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

48.2 / 100

Citywide

93rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

92nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

+11

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Rosebank Park, aerial top-down view — **Top-down view.**City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Explain this score

Where did the 48 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 Activation25 · p80

-6.3

Connectivity80 · p99

+6.0

Amenity Diversity28 · p95

-4.3

Enclosure / Eyes on Park71 · p71

+2.1

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Natural Comfort45 · p51

-0.7

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

Rosebank Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (28) is also top decile (28 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 17 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Rosebank Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (80, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (80) significantly outpaces natural comfort (45): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
The park is enclosed by buildings (71) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 25): frame without animation.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+11 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 4.3 ha, framed by 13 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

24.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 16 active uses (transit_stop, community, restaurant, retail) and 6 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%

80.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 58 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 28 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 15 estimated access points across ~1,206 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m15

Intersections within 100 m17

Paths/walkways (50 m)14

Sidewalk segments (50 m)58

Transit stops (400 m)28

Estimated entrances15

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.24

Park perimeter1,206 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, community_centre, playground). 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% weightpartial 45%

45.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~10.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~461 m; 64 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (14.7/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)461 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon64

Tree density14.7 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0

Sample points used175

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

71.1 / 100

70 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (13 mid-rise, 57 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 5.8 buildings per 100 m of 1,206 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 13 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m70

Buildings within 50 m70

Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building35.6 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)13

Low-rise (< 3 floors)57

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density5.80 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge19%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,206 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 (3 types · 3 records)

basketball
community centre
playground

Nearby active-edge features (39)

community: Toronto Public Library - Burrows Hall0 m
community: Richard Charles Lee Resource Centre0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop: Progress Ave at Sheppard Ave E5 m
transit stop: Progress Ave at Rosebank Dr6 m
transit stop: Milner Ave at Progress Ave11 m
transit stop: Progress Ave at Sheppard Ave E21 m
transit stop: Progress Ave at Rosebank Dr22 m
transit stop: Progress Ave at Milner Ave27 m
parking lot30 m
transit stop: Progress Avenue35 m
transit stop: Progress Avenue46 m
transit stop: Progress NB/Milner50 m
transit stop: Progress Ave at Milner Ave53 m
parking lot57 m
parking lot65 m
transit stop: Milner Ave at Progress Ave69 m
parking lot81 m
retail84 m
restaurant: Popular Pizza87 m
restaurant: Veerar90 m
retail: Spiceland Super Market102 m
parking lot116 m
parking lot119 m
retail119 m
retail125 m
retail: Food Mart127 m
transit stop: Gateforth Drive141 m
parking lot150 m
retail: Sky Cleaaner157 m
parking lot159 m
parking lot167 m
parking lot177 m
parking lot177 m
retail: Saba Travel & Tours186 m
transit stop: Gateforth Drive196 m
parking lot199 m
parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
93th
Edge activation
80th
Connectivity
99th
Amenity diversity
95th
Natural comfort
51th
Enclosure
71th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Glendora ParkCorridor / Linear Park48
Eringate ParkNeighbourhood Park50
Baird ParkParkette55
Gulliver ParkNeighbourhood Park49
Bridlewood ParkAthletic / Recreation Park53

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 Park26
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match

Visitor signal score64 / 100

64.4 / 100

p86 citywide · p85 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)55

Density / ha59

Rating contribution83

Match dampener×1.00

Average rating

★ 4.3

out of 5

Ratings collected

614

total reviews

Photos uploaded

total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Rosebank 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.
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.
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.