Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Humber Summit (21)confidence moderate

Gord and Irene Risk Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, in the top tier overall (score 49, rank ~92th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

Gord and Irene Risk Park scores 48.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (28). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 0.87 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundGarden
Facilities
Drinking waterPicnic areaBenches
Vitality Score
49/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 70%

Data Confidence
48.8 / 100
Citywide
92nd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
33
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=207)
Performance gap
+16
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong 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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 49 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 Activation28 · p86
-5.5
Connectivity69 · p91
+3.8
Amenity Diversity39 · p92
-2.3
Natural Comfort59 · p77
+1.4
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park49 · p11
-0.1

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

Gord and Irene Risk Park works because its amenity diversity score (39) is in the top tier and its connectivity (69) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Gord and Irene Risk Park is held back by enclosure (49, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (39, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 49 versus an expected 33 for similar parks (small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine) (gap +16).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 10% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
28.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop) and 4 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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 7 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~371 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.35
Park perimeter371 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
38.6 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, drinking_water, garden, picnic, 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% weightmeasured 75%
59.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 9.8% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~93 m; 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.0/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).

Canopy coverage9.8%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)93 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon9
Tree density9.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)43.5
Sample points used61

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%
49.4 / 100

3 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 11.0 m (~4 floors); 0.8 buildings per 100 m of 371 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m3
Buildings within 50 m3
Avg edge height11.0 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building22.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.81 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge33%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)73%
Park perimeter371 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: Line 6 Finch West, Line 6 Finch West. 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 (5 types · 8 records)

  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • picnic
  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (21)

  • transit stop3 m
  • transit stop: Islington Avenue at Finch Avenue4 m
  • transit stop: Rowntree Mills20 m
  • rail: Line 6 Finch West31 m
  • rail: Line 6 Finch West32 m
  • transit stop: ISLINGTON AV / FINCH AV37 m
  • transit stop: ISLINGTON AV / FINCH AV37 m
  • transit stop: FINCH AV STOP # 754137 m
  • transit stop: FINCH AV STOP # 754137 m
  • transit stop: Islington Ave at Finch Ave W71 m
  • transit stop76 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue West112 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • transit stop: Aviemore Drive128 m
  • parking lot136 m
  • transit stop: Rowntree Mills139 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • transit stop: 2825 Islington Avenue151 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGord and Irene Risk 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
    92th
  • Edge activation
    86th
  • Connectivity
    91th
  • Amenity diversity
    92th
  • Natural comfort
    77th
  • Enclosure
    11th

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 Gord and Irene Risk 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.
  • Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
  • 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.