Waterfront Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksDownsview-Roding-CFB (26)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 67)

Waterfront Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Trca Lands ( 67) scores 41 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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 · 0.51 ha

Vitality Score

41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

41.0 / 100

Citywide

79th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

87th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Waterfront Park waterfront (n=112)

Performance gap

+11

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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 Diversity0 · p66

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Edge Activation38 · p91

-3.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park73 · p74

+2.3

Natural Comfort36 · p26

-2.1

Connectivity50 · p56

+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

Trca Lands ( 67) works because its edge activation score (38) is in the top tier and its enclosure (73) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 67) is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (38, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 67) sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+11 vs the median in small Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 6% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (94% ravine overlap, 0% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

37.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 2 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%

50.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~333 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m6

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)13

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.20

Park perimeter333 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%

35.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 94.3% inside the ravine system; 5.7% 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 system94.3%

Water surface inside park5.7%

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

Estimated green94.3%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)31.6

Sample points used35

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

73.0 / 100

20 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 15 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 6.0 buildings per 100 m of 333 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 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m20

Buildings within 50 m20

Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building29.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5

Low-rise (< 3 floors)15

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density6.01 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge25%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter333 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (43)

transit stop — Jane St at Wilson Ave21 m
transit stop — Jane Street22 m
parking lot46 m
parking lot56 m
retail — Wilson Muffler64 m
retail — Esso71 m
transit stop — Jane Street72 m
retail — Neighbours80 m
transit stop — Jane St at Wilson Ave90 m
parking lot101 m
parking lot105 m
transit stop — Epic Lane Road109 m
retail — Cash Money112 m
parking lot120 m
parking lot122 m
restaurant — Pizza Nova124 m
parking lot130 m
parking lot134 m
restaurant — Golden Star Restaurant135 m
transit stop — Epic Lane Road139 m
restaurant — Willy's Jerk139 m
retail — Fire & Flower Cannabis Co.139 m
retail — Freedom Mobile141 m
retail — Lien's Nails141 m
parking lot143 m
parking lot147 m
retail — Smartlinks Electronics148 m
retail — St. Pio Bakery149 m
retail — Cash Pond152 m
parking lot154 m
parking lot158 m
retail — Lien's Nails159 m
retail — Dollarama161 m
parking lot162 m
restaurant — Pho Tien Phat165 m
parking lot171 m
retail — Plaza Coin Laundry & Dry Cleaner172 m
retail — Global Communications173 m
restaurant — Popeyes176 m
restaurant — Shawarma Istanbul179 m
retail — Nails for You180 m
retail — Money Mart183 m
retail — easyhome193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
79th
Edge activation
91th
Connectivity
56th
Amenity diversity
66th
Natural comfort
26th
Enclosure
74th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Larry Sefton ParkCivic Square40
City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza42
Lake Shore Teachers College Centre IslandUrban Plaza42
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park39
Riverside CemeteryNeighbourhood Park40

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 ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26

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 Trca Lands ( 67)matters. 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.

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.
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.