Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Clairlea-Birchmount (120)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

St. Clair Ravine

Waterfront Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~77th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

St. Clair Ravine scores 40.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. 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 · 6.36 ha

Vitality Score

40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

40.4 / 100

Citywide

77th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

85th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=65)

Performance gap

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 40 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 · p61

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p69

-10.0

Connectivity76 · p97

+5.3

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Natural Comfort67 · p81

+2.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p51

+1.3

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 (28 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 23 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

St. Clair Ravine doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

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 (63) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 5% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 22% canopy).

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%

76.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 50 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 23 street intersections within 100 m; 28 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~1,580 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m12

Intersections within 100 m23

Paths/walkways (50 m)10

Sidewalk segments (50 m)50

Transit stops (400 m)28

Estimated entrances10

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.76

Park perimeter1,580 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% weightmeasured 75%

66.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 22.1% estimated tree canopy; 99.4% inside the ravine system; 5.0% water surface; 25 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.9/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 coverage22.1%

Canopy area1.40 ha

Inside ravine system99.4%

Water surface inside park5.0%

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

Estimated green95.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon25

Tree density3.9 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)56.5

Sample points used181

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.2 / 100

100 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 93 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.8 m (~2 floors); 6.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,580 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m100

Buildings within 50 m100

Avg edge height5.8 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building13.4 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7

Low-rise (< 3 floors)93

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density6.33 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge7%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,580 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 (27)

transit stop — St. Clair Avenue at Santamonica Boulevard1 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue at Birchmount Road West Side10 m
transit stop — Birchmount Road at St. Clair Avenue East North Side31 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue at Elfreda Boulevard32 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue at Santamonica Boulevard33 m
parking lot50 m
parking lot51 m
restaurant — Westbank Restaurant & Bar51 m
retail — Say it with a Rose52 m
retail — Norton Cleaners52 m
retail — Fantasy Fashion Boutique Lingerie & Intimate Apparel52 m
retail — Dollar Variety Smoke & Gift52 m
retail — Daisy Mart52 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line56 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line59 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line61 m
transit stop — Birchmount Road at St. Clair Avenue East South Side66 m
rail — Bloor-Danforth Line66 m
transit stop — St. Clair Avenue at Birchmount Road East Side75 m
parking lot89 m
parking lot89 m
parking lot99 m
parking lot131 m
transit stop — Warden179 m
parking lot — Warden Station North Parking Lot181 m
parking lot181 m
transit stop — Warden183 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
77th
Edge activation
61th
Connectivity
97th
Amenity diversity
69th
Natural comfort
81th
Enclosure
51th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Islington Golf ClubRavine / Naturalized Park34
Park Drive Reservation LandsRavine / Naturalized Park42
East Don ParklandWaterfront Park32
York Mills ParkWaterfront Park31
Park Lawn CemeteryOther30

Most opposite parks

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

Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Danforth Gardens ParkParkette42

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.

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.