Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Woburn Park - North York — site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Bedford Park-Nortown (39)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Woburn Park - North York

Corridor / Linear Park, in the top tier overall (score 45, rank ~89th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Jeff Goldband via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Woburn Park - North York scores 44.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 2.01 ha

Vitality Score
45/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
44.9 / 100
Citywide
89th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
89th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)
Performance gap
+8
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

Woburn Park - North York — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 45 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 · p58
-12.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p95
-4.3
Connectivity70 · p90
+3.9
Natural Comfort67 · p81
+2.6
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p78
+2.6

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

Woburn Park - North York works because its amenity diversity score (28) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (70) is also top decile.

What limits this park

.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Woburn Park - North York 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
  • Strong physical conditions (score 45) but weak observed activity signals (9) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its corridor / linear park typology (+8 vs the median in medium Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 3.2× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (2.0 ha, framed by 23 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (retail) and 4 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%
69.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 11 estimated access points across ~1,614 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m13
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)11
Sidewalk segments (50 m)23
Transit stops (400 m)15
Estimated entrances11
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.81
Park perimeter1,614 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 (basketball, dog_area, 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%
67.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 33.3% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~968 m; 21 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.4/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage33.3%
Canopy area0.67 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)968 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon21
Tree density10.4 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)91.8
Sample points used45

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
75.9 / 100

223 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (23 mid-rise, 200 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.3 m (~2 floors); 13.8 buildings per 100 m of 1,614 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 23 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m223
Buildings within 50 m223
Avg edge height7.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building17.5 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)23
Low-rise (< 3 floors)200
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density13.81 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge10%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,614 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 · 3 records)

  • basketball
  • dog area
  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (18)

  • parking lot5 m
  • parking lot19 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • parking lot64 m
  • retail — 9-11 Milk80 m
  • retail — Bathurst Street Coin Laundry83 m
  • transit stop — Saranac Boulevard109 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • transit stop114 m
  • transit stop — Prince Charles Drive123 m
  • transit stop — Fairlawn Avenue124 m
  • transit stop — Lawrence Ave at Ledbury St130 m
  • transit stop — Ledbury Street150 m
  • transit stop — 3174 Bathurst Street156 m
  • transit stop — Welland Road162 m
  • parking lot162 m
  • parking lot185 m
  • parking lot187 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureWoburn Park - North York

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    89th
  • Edge activation
    58th
  • Connectivity
    90th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    81th
  • Enclosure
    78th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

medium-confidence match
Visitor signal score
38/ 100
38.0 / 100

p37 citywide · p56 within Corridor / Linear Park

Volume (saturated)18
Density / ha35
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×0.85
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
109
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match medium (0.69 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

Human activity signals

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 50%
Overall activity
9/ 100
9.1 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
15real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
29unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Woburn Park - North Yorkmatters. 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.
  • Diversify what people can do in the park — playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden — even small additions raise this score.

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.