Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Sunnybrook Park — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills (41)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Sunnybrook Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 34, rank ~48th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Sunnybrook Park scores 33.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:escape into nature

Area · 90.36 ha

Vitality Score
34/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
33.6 / 100
Citywide
48th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
51st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
34
median in very large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=31)
Performance gap
+0
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 Activation0 · p37
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity69 · p89
+3.7
Amenity Diversity39 · p98
-2.3
Natural Comfort45 · p48
-0.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park54 · p19
+0.4

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

Sunnybrook Park works because its amenity diversity score (39) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (69) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Sunnybrook Park is held back by enclosure (54, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (39, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Sunnybrook Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Destination Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 99% ravine overlap, 1% canopy. Secondary read: Destination Park (90 ha, 5 amenity types, connectivity 69 / comfort 45).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, cafe) and 27 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%
68.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 40 mapped paths/walkways and 112 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 18 street intersections within 100 m; 28 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 19 estimated access points across ~6,953 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m18
Paths/walkways (50 m)40
Sidewalk segments (50 m)112
Transit stops (400 m)28
Estimated entrances19
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.07
Park perimeter6,953 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
38.6 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, fitness, picnic, sports_field, washroom). 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%
44.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~2.5% effective canopy (1.1% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 98.9% inside the ravine system; 2.4% water surface; 328 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.6/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 coverage1.1%
Canopy area1.02 ha
Inside ravine system98.9%
Water surface inside park2.4%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green97.6%
City-mapped trees inside polygon328
Tree density3.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)15.5
Sample points used800

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
54.1 / 100

160 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (20 mid-rise, 140 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.0 m (~2 floors); 2.3 buildings per 100 m of 6,953 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 20 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m160
Buildings within 50 m160
Avg edge height7.0 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building22.8 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)20
Low-rise (< 3 floors)140
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.30 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge13%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)23%
Park perimeter6,953 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, Parking Lot #4, 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 (5 types · 5 records)

  • dog area
  • fitness
  • picnic
  • sports field
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (71)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot3 m
  • parking lot21 m
  • parking lot25 m
  • parking lot25 m
  • parking lot — Parking Lot #428 m
  • parking lot32 m
  • parking lot36 m
  • parking lot37 m
  • parking lot — Garage 354 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • transit stop57 m
  • parking lot59 m
  • parking lot61 m
  • transit stop61 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • parking lot64 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • transit stop67 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Pizza71 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • transit stop — Blythwood Road78 m
  • restaurant — Extreme Pita78 m
  • cafe — Second Cup82 m
  • restaurant — Swiss Chalet83 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Rd at Blythwood Road83 m
  • restaurant — On the Go85 m
  • transit stop89 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • transit stop — Wellness Way at Hospital Rd108 m
  • parking lot111 m
  • school — Bloorview School Authority111 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • transit stop — Wellness Way at Hospital Rd117 m
  • transit stop — Kilgour Road (CNIB)127 m
  • transit stop — Hospital Rd at Wellness Way130 m
  • transit stop — Opposite 1155 Leslie Street134 m
  • transit stop — Kilgour Road (CNIB)140 m
  • parking lot — Parking Lot 1142 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • transit stop — Toronto Rehab Rumsey Centre145 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot — Parking Lot #3149 m
  • parking lot150 m
  • parking lot150 m
  • transit stop — 1125 Leslie Street152 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • parking lot168 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • parking lot172 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • parking lot — Parking Garage 1179 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • transit stop — 1121 Leslie Street186 m
  • transit stop — 1165 Leslie Street190 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • transit stop — Royal Oak Drive192 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSunnybrook Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    48th
  • Edge activation
    37th
  • Connectivity
    89th
  • Amenity diversity
    98th
  • Natural comfort
    48th
  • Enclosure
    19th

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.

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 Sunnybrook 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.

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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • 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.