
L'Amoreaux North Park
Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 51, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.
Photo by Kam Wong via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
L'Amoreaux North Park scores 50.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (7.4). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 21.24 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.
Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 51 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
L'Amoreaux North Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (48) is also top decile (26 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 23 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).
What limits this park
L'Amoreaux North Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 48.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (80, top decile).
Jacobs reading
L'Amoreaux North 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 (68) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 7): frame without animation.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+12 vs the median in large Waterfront Park waterfront).
Typology classification
Classified as Waterfront Park: 9% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (81% ravine overlap, 34% canopy).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 15 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, community, cafe) and 8 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 57 mapped paths/walkways and 121 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 23 street intersections within 100 m; 26 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 23 estimated access points across ~2,704 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
7 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, dog_area, sports_field, washroom, bench, 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: 33.8% estimated tree canopy; 81.0% inside the ravine system; 8.9% water surface; 88 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.1/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
307 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (14 mid-rise, 291 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 6.4 m (~2 floors); 11.4 buildings per 100 m of 2,704 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 14 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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
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 (7 types · 18 records)
- basketball
- dog area
- sports field
- washroom
- bench
- community centre
- picnic
Nearby active-edge features (30)
- community: L’Amoreaux Community Recreation Centre0 m
- parking lot0 m
- transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Silver Springs Blvd1 m
- transit stop: Birchmount Road at Opposite Walkway to Ambercroft Boulevard5 m
- transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Silver Springs Blvd17 m
- transit stop: Birchmount Road at Walkway to Ambercroft Boulevard23 m
- transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Morbank Dr23 m
- transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Kennedy Ave24 m
- cafe: CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice34 m
- parking lot35 m
- restaurant: Pit Stop Tropical Restaurant36 m
- transit stop36 m
- parking lot39 m
- transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Kennedy Ave40 m
- parking lot41 m
- transit stop: Kennedy Ave at McNicoll Ave47 m
- parking lot62 m
- parking lot63 m
- transit stop: Kennedy Ave at McNicoll Ave64 m
- transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Morbank Dr68 m
- parking lot88 m
- parking lot92 m
- retail: Kitchenware Outlet99 m
- parking lot108 m
- parking lot110 m
- parking lot118 m
- parking lot134 m
- parking lot144 m
- parking lot151 m
- parking lot175 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality94th
- Edge activation67th
- Connectivity99th
- Amenity diversity96th
- Natural comfort89th
- Enclosure67th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Humber ArboretumWaterfront Park43
- G. Ross Lord ParkWaterfront Park45
- Rennie ParkWaterfront Park46
- Earl Bales ParkWaterfront Park46
- Knob Hill ParkWaterfront Park43
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
- Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
- Trca Lands ( 58)Waterfront Park18
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
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.
“Wooded park featuring a large pond & hiking/biking trails, plus an off-leash area for dogs.” (Google editorial summary)
p76 citywide · p74 within Waterfront Park
Source: Google Places API · match high (0.98 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 L'Amoreaux North 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.
- 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. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.