Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)O'Connor-Parkview (54)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Taylor Creek Park

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 50, rank ~95th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Taylor Creek Park scores 49.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: edge activation and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). 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 · 1.55 ha

Vitality Score

50/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

49.5 / 100

Citywide

95th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

97th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Waterfront Park waterfront (n=126)

Performance gap

+20

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 50 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 Diversity0 · p21

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Edge Activation65 · p99

+3.7

Natural Comfort40 · p37

-1.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p50

+1.3

Connectivity55 · p64

+1.0

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

Taylor Creek Park works because its edge activation score (65) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (55) is also above-average (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Taylor Creek Park is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (65, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Taylor Creek 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 50 versus an expected 30 for similar parks (medium Waterfront Park waterfront) (gap +20).

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 13% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (98% ravine overlap, 0% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

64.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, retail) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%

55.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 25 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,119 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m9

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)16

Transit stops (400 m)25

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.45

Park perimeter1,119 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%

0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%

39.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 98.1% inside the ravine system; 13.2% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system98.1%

Water surface inside park13.2%

Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)

Estimated green86.8%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)52.5

Sample points used53

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.1 / 100

79 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 75 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.8 m (~2 floors); 7.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,119 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m79

Buildings within 50 m79

Avg edge height5.8 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building9.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)4

Low-rise (< 3 floors)75

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.06 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge5%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,119 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (20)

transit stop — Sandra Rd at St Clair Ave E16 m
transit stop — O'Connor Drive37 m
transit stop — St Clair Avenue E at Doris Dr41 m
retail — Joe Guerico Fine Art Restoration50 m
transit stop — Sandra Road58 m
retail — Pete's Auto Care60 m
restaurant — Pizza Pizza83 m
transit stop — St Clair Avenue E at Denvale Rd84 m
transit stop — St Clair Avenue E at Marilyn Cres94 m
retail — Divine Nails96 m
transit stop — St Clair Avenue E at Denvale Rd96 m
retail — Grocery & Bargain113 m
parking lot116 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue East150 m
restaurant — Jawny Bakers161 m
transit stop — Glenwood Crescent162 m
transit stop — Glenwood Crescent166 m
transit stop — Parkview Hill Cres at Woodbine Heights Blvd167 m
transit stop — O'Connor Drive193 m
parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
95th
Edge activation
99th
Connectivity
64th
Amenity diversity
21th
Natural comfort
37th
Enclosure
50th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceParkette49
Kennedy ParketteParkette47
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park51
Creekside ParkWaterfront Park48
Hickorynut ParketteParkette47

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

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 Taylor Creek 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.

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.

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.