Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Civic Squarecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Regent Park (72)confidence moderate

PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds

Civic Square, one of the city's strongest overall (score 52, rank ~97th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Willie B. Hardigan via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds scores 51.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 0.60 ha

Vitality Score
52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
51.9 / 100
Citywide
97th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Civic Square
87th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Civic Square (n=23)
Performance gap
+10
raw − expected · context confidence medium
modest overperformer

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.
PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds, 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 52 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
Amenity Diversity12 · p70
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity69 · p89
+3.8
Edge Activation44 · p94
-1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p41
+1.1
Natural Comfort57 · p71
+1.0

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

PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (44) is in the top tier and its connectivity (69) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (44, top decile).

Jacobs reading

PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its civic square typology (+10 vs the median in small Civic Square).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Civic Square

Classified as Civic Square: tower-walled, low canopy (0%), tight frontage: reads as a civic square

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
44.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (cafe, restaurant, community, retail, transit_stop) and 3 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%
69.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 18 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~352 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)11
Sidewalk segments (50 m)18
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.56
Park perimeter352 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). 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%
56.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~27.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~439 m; 39 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (39.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. 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)439 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon39
Tree density39.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used42

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.2 / 100

39 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 10 low-rise, 19 tower); avg edge height 45.3 m (~15 floors); 11.1 buildings per 100 m of 352 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 19 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m39
Buildings within 50 m39
Avg edge height45.3 m (~15 floors)
Tallest edge building98.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)10
Towers (≥ 13 floors)19
Frontage density11.08 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge26%
Tower share of edge49%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter352 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (31)

  • transit stop: Sumach Street8 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street11 m
  • retail: Purple Factory27 m
  • retail: Rogers34 m
  • restaurant: Wendy's35 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes50 m
  • retail: Wine Rack57 m
  • parking lot58 m
  • restaurant: Liberty Pizza68 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons75 m
  • restaurant: Subway80 m
  • community: Daniels Spectrum83 m
  • retail: Circle K90 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • cafe: Le Beau94 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street141 m
  • restaurant: Cafe Zuzu141 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street151 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street155 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons164 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street172 m
  • retail: Rabba179 m
  • restaurant: Freddy's Greek180 m
  • restaurant: Tahini's184 m
  • retail: Pro League189 m
  • retail: Busy Bee Spa190 m
  • transit stop: River Street193 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosurePAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Grounds
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
    97th
  • Edge activation
    94th
  • Connectivity
    89th
  • Amenity diversity
    70th
  • Natural comfort
    71th
  • Enclosure
    41th

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.

“Striking modern facility in Regent Park with 3 indoor swimming pools, open freely to the public.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score81 / 100
81.4 / 100

p96 citywide · p90 within Civic Square

Volume (saturated)67
Density / ha94
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
1,018
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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 PAM McCONNELL AQUATIC CENTRE - Building Groundsmatters. 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.