Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Participate
Old Fire Hall 30 — site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksSouth Riverdale (70)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Old Fire Hall 30

Waterfront Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~77th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 40.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. 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 for:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 7.90 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
40.5 / 100
Citywide
77th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
86th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=65)
Performance gap
+3
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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
Edge Activation32 · p88
-4.5
Natural Comfort42 · p41
-1.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park39 · p9
-1.1
Connectivity50 · p54
-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

Old Fire Hall 30 works because its edge activation score (32) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (12) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Old Fire Hall 30 is held back by enclosure (39, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (39, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Old Fire Hall 30 sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 25% water surface inside park

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) and 1 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%
49.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,407 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)11
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.50
Park perimeter1,407 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%
41.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 25.0% water surface; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.1/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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 park25.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green75.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon1
Tree density0.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)81.1
Sample points used176

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
39.4 / 100

16 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 13 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 1.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,407 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m16
Buildings within 50 m16
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building12.4 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)13
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.14 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge19%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)62%
Park perimeter1,407 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 (9)

  • transit stop — Commissioners St at Munition St9 m
  • transit stop — Commissioners St at Munition St24 m
  • transit stop52 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • transit stop — Commisioners St75 m
  • transit stop134 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • transit stop144 m
  • transit stop179 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureOld Fire Hall 30

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    77th
  • Edge activation
    88th
  • Connectivity
    54th
  • Amenity diversity
    70th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    9th

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 Old Fire Hall 30matters. 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

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

Data sources

  • 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.