Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Phin Park, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Blake-Jones (69)confidence moderate

Phin Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Doug Campbell via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Phin Park scores 44.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 0.95 ha

Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
44.2 / 100
Citywide
88th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
61st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)
Performance gap
+3
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Phin 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 44 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 · p27
-12.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p93
-4.3
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p88
+3.3
Connectivity64 · p80
+2.7
Natural Comfort58 · p72
+1.2

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

Phin Park works because its amenity diversity score (28) is in the top tier and its enclosure (83) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Phin Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Phin Park 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 (83) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (88th) but typology rank is more modest (61st): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 67% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, tennis)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (school) 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%
63.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 15 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~473 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m15
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.06
Park perimeter473 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, playground, tennis). 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%
57.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 21.2% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1489 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/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 coverage21.2%
Canopy area0.20 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,489 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon8
Tree density8.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)74.6
Sample points used66

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
82.9 / 100

119 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (16 mid-rise, 103 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 25.1 buildings per 100 m of 473 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 16 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m119
Buildings within 50 m119
Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building20.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)16
Low-rise (< 3 floors)103
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density25.14 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge13%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter473 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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
  • playground
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (17)

  • parking lot47 m
  • school: Subway Academy I81 m
  • parking lot92 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • parking lot150 m
  • rail160 m
  • retail: Ram Upholstery167 m
  • rail172 m
  • rail178 m
  • rail181 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • transit stop: Jones Ave at Strathcona Ave190 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • rail196 m
  • rail197 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosurePhin Park
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
    88th
  • Edge activation
    27th
  • Connectivity
    80th
  • Amenity diversity
    93th
  • Natural comfort
    72th
  • Enclosure
    88th

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.

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 score56 / 100
55.7 / 100

p77 citywide · p75 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)25
Density / ha64
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
170
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (1.00 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 Phin 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.

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.

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.