Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)confidence moderate

Max Ward Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 17, rank ~1th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Max Ward Park scores 17.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and amenity diversity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 5.66 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports fieldTennis
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
17/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 52%

Data Confidence
17.4 / 100
Citywide
1st
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
0th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in large Athletic / Recreation Park (n=27)
Performance gap
-15
raw − expected · context confidence medium
strong underperformer

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 17 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 · p56
-12.5
Connectivity16 · p12
-6.9
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Amenity Diversity28 · p83
-4.3
Natural Comfort24 · p6
-3.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park50 · p15
+0.0

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

Max Ward Park works because its amenity diversity score (28) is above average.

What limits this park

Max Ward Park is held back by natural comfort (24, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (24, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Max Ward Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort: raw 17 vs an expected 32 (gap -15).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Park

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

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 28 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% weightpartial 45%
15.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~996 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter996 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 (bench, sports_field, 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% weightinferred 30%
24.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~761 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)761 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used181

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightinferred 20%
50.0 / 100

No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.

Buildings within 25 m0
Buildings within 50 m0
Avg edge height0.0 m (~0 floors)
Tallest edge building0.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)100%
Park perimeter996 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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

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 · 4 records)

  • bench
  • sports field
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (64)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Matheson Boulevard at 2365 Matheson Boulevard5 m
  • parking lot9 m
  • parking lot11 m
  • parking lot21 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • transit stop: Matheson Boulevard East of Satellite Boulevard28 m
  • parking lot34 m
  • parking lot46 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • parking lot54 m
  • parking lot59 m
  • parking lot60 m
  • parking lot61 m
  • parking lot62 m
  • cafe: La Prep66 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • parking lot70 m
  • restaurant: Pita Lite71 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • retail76 m
  • restaurant: Subway84 m
  • parking lot84 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • transit stop: Matheson Boulevard At Satellite Drive111 m
  • transit stop: Matheson Boulevard West Of Orbitor Drive113 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • transit stop: Matheson Boulevard At Orbitor Drive143 m
  • transit stop147 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • parking lot150 m
  • parking lot153 m
  • transit stop154 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • transit stop164 m
  • transit stop: Matheson Boulevard At Satellite Drive164 m
  • parking lot177 m
  • transit stop177 m
  • parking lot179 m
  • transit stop183 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMax Ward 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
    1th
  • Edge activation
    56th
  • Connectivity
    12th
  • Amenity diversity
    83th
  • Natural comfort
    6th
  • Enclosure
    15th

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 Max Ward 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.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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.