Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
St. Clair Ravine, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Clairlea-Birchmount (120)confidence moderate

St. Clair Ravine

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~51th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

St. Clair Ravine scores 34.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (96). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 7.72 ha

What's here

Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
34.6 / 100
Citywide
51st
of all 3,788 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
53rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=127)
Performance gap
-2
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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 · p52
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p62
-7.6
Connectivity76 · p97
+5.2
Border Vacuum Risk96 (risk)
-4.6
Natural Comfort67 · p83
+2.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p65
+1.7

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

St. Clair Ravine works because its connectivity score (76) is one of the city's strongest and its natural comfort (67) is also top quartile (29 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 25 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

St. Clair Ravine's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 96.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (76, top decile).

Jacobs reading

St. Clair Ravine 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 (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (96): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 99% ravine overlap, 25% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (7.7 ha, framed by 12 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 9 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
76.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 54 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 25 street intersections within 100 m; 29 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~1,714 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m13
Intersections within 100 m25
Paths/walkways (50 m)10
Sidewalk segments (50 m)54
Transit stops (400 m)29
Estimated entrances8
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.76
Park perimeter1,714 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 (bench). 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%
66.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 24.5% estimated tree canopy; 99.4% inside the ravine system; 1.3% water surface; 25 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.2/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 coverage24.5%
Canopy area1.89 ha
Inside ravine system99.4%
Water surface inside park1.3%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green98.7%
City-mapped trees inside polygon25
Tree density3.2 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)50.0
Sample points used155

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.5 / 100

116 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (12 mid-rise, 104 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.3 m (~2 floors); 6.8 buildings per 100 m of 1,714 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 12 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m116
Buildings within 50 m116
Avg edge height6.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building30.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)12
Low-rise (< 3 floors)104
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density6.77 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge10%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,714 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
96.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, 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 (1 types · 3 records)

  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (28)

  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue at Santamonica Boulevard0 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue at Birchmount Road West Side0 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue at Elfreda Boulevard23 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth25 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth26 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth31 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue at Santamonica Boulevard32 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth32 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at St. Clair Avenue East North Side36 m
  • parking lot36 m
  • restaurant: Westbank Restaurant & Bar39 m
  • parking lot39 m
  • retail: Daisy Mart39 m
  • retail: Say it with a Rose39 m
  • retail: Fantasy Fashion Boutique Lingerie & Intimate Apparel39 m
  • retail: Norton Cleaners40 m
  • retail: Dollar Variety Smoke & Gift40 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at St. Clair Avenue East South Side58 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue at Birchmount Road East Side73 m
  • parking lot76 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • parking lot: Warden Station North Parking Lot151 m
  • transit stop: Warden160 m
  • transit stop: Warden163 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • parking lot180 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSt. Clair Ravine
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
    51th
  • Edge activation
    52th
  • Connectivity
    97th
  • Amenity diversity
    62th
  • Natural comfort
    83th
  • Enclosure
    65th

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 St. Clair Ravinematters. 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.
  • 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.