Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Black Creek (24)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Edgeley Park

Corridor / Linear Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Frank Dargazli via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Edgeley Park scores 42.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 4.21 ha

Vitality Score

42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

42.2 / 100

Citywide

83rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

85th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)

Performance gap

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.

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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 · p46

-12.5

Connectivity69 · p90

+3.8

Amenity Diversity35 · p97

-3.1

Natural Comfort61 · p76

+1.6

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p34

+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

Edgeley Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (69) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Edgeley Park is held back by enclosure (60, below-average); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (35, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Edgeley Park 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 corridor / linear park typology (+6 vs the median in medium Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Athletic / Recreation Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.5× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Athletic / Recreation Park (50% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, tennis)).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop) and 11 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%

69.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 46 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~1,791 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)14

Sidewalk segments (50 m)46

Transit stops (400 m)21

Estimated entrances10

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.50

Park perimeter1,791 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, community_centre, playground, tennis). 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%

60.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~14.8% effective canopy (9.1% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 19.1% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~8 m; 89 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (21.2/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage9.1%

Canopy area0.38 ha

Inside ravine system19.1%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)8 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon89

Tree density21.2 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)70.3

Sample points used110

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

59.8 / 100

168 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 167 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.0 m (~2 floors); 9.4 buildings per 100 m of 1,791 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m168

Buildings within 50 m168

Avg edge height5.0 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building32.4 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)167

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density9.38 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge1%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,791 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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 (4 types · 4 records)

basketball
community centre
playground
tennis

Nearby active-edge features (38)

parking lot0 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Jane St4 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Jane St18 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Laskay Cres33 m
transit stop — Jane St at Driftwood Ave33 m
parking lot44 m
transit stop — Jane St at Milo Park Gate45 m
parking lot49 m
parking lot51 m
parking lot54 m
transit stop — 4359 Jane Street59 m
parking lot61 m
transit stop69 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Laskay Cres69 m
parking lot84 m
parking lot91 m
parking lot92 m
parking lot99 m
parking lot100 m
parking lot106 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Driftwood Court110 m
parking lot118 m
parking lot124 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Driftwood Court128 m
parking lot129 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Cobbler Cres130 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Cobbler Cres135 m
parking lot149 m
parking lot155 m
parking lot161 m
parking lot170 m
parking lot183 m
parking lot185 m
parking lot186 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Hoover Cres193 m
parking lot195 m
parking lot196 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
83th
Edge activation
46th
Connectivity
90th
Amenity diversity
97th
Natural comfort
76th
Enclosure
34th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Marie Curtis ParkWaterfront Park37
Pine Point ParkWaterfront Park36
Roding ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Raymore ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Masseygrove ParkRavine / Naturalized Park37

Most opposite parks

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

Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49

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.

high-confidence match

Visitor signal score

21/ 100

20.5 / 100

p9 citywide · p13 within Corridor / Linear Park

Volume (saturated)1

Density / ha2

Rating contribution65

Match dampener×1.00

Average rating

★ 3.6

out of 5

Ratings collected

total reviews

Photos uploaded

total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.92 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

8/ 100

7.5 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

10real

Temporal rhythm

13real

Pedestrian / cycling flow

8unknown

Cultural significance

20unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Edgeley 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.

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.
Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.