Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Rosedale-Moore Park (98)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Moore Park Ravine

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 34, rank ~51th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Moore Park Ravine scores 34.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (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:escape into nature

Area · 5.98 ha

Vitality Score

34/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

34.3 / 100

Citywide

51st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Ravine / Naturalized Park

55th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=119)

Performance gap

-2

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 34 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 Activation1 · p64

-12.3

Amenity Diversity0 · p67

-10.0

Connectivity65 · p83

+3.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park70 · p69

+2.0

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Natural Comfort51 · p62

+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

Moore Park Ravine works because its connectivity score (65) is above average and its enclosure (70) is also above-average (16 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 24 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Moore Park Ravine's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (65, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Moore Park 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 (70) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 1) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 99% ravine overlap, 6% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 3.3× a circle of equal area).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

1.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 3 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%

65.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 15 mapped paths/walkways and 33 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 24 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~2,875 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m24

Paths/walkways (50 m)15

Sidewalk segments (50 m)33

Transit stops (400 m)16

Estimated entrances8

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.17

Park perimeter2,875 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%

50.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 6.1% estimated tree canopy; 98.5% inside the ravine system; 3.0% water surface; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.3/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 coverage6.1%

Canopy area0.36 ha

Inside ravine system98.5%

Water surface inside park3.0%

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

Estimated green97.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon14

Tree density2.3 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)31.3

Sample points used66

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

70.1 / 100

186 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (30 mid-rise, 156 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.1 m (~2 floors); 6.5 buildings per 100 m of 2,875 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 30 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m186

Buildings within 50 m186

Avg edge height7.1 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building15.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)30

Low-rise (< 3 floors)156

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density6.47 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge16%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter2,875 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: North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision. 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 (8)

rail — North Toronto Subdivision9 m
rail — North Toronto Subdivision14 m
transit stop — Brendan Road36 m
transit stop — Brendan Road71 m
parking lot78 m
transit stop105 m
transit stop108 m
parking lot140 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
51th
Edge activation
64th
Connectivity
83th
Amenity diversity
67th
Natural comfort
62th
Enclosure
69th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Nicol Macnicol ParketteParkette37
Taylor Creek ParkRavine / Naturalized Park30
Black Creek Site EastRavine / Naturalized Park34
Woolenscote ParketteParkette37
East York Civic CentreCivic Square32

Most opposite parks

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

Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51

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 Moore Park 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.
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.