Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Cliffcrest (123)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarboro Crescent Park

Waterfront Park, above average overall (score 39, rank ~72th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Scarboro Crescent Park scores 39.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (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 · 8.86 ha

Vitality Score

39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

39.4 / 100

Citywide

73rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

81st

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 39 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 · p38

-12.5

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Amenity Diversity28 · p94

-4.3

Natural Comfort66 · p81

+2.5

Connectivity42 · p38

-1.6

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

Scarboro Crescent Park works because its amenity diversity score (28) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (66) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Scarboro Crescent Park is held back by enclosure (54, bottom quartile)— no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Scarboro Crescent Park is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 8% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (69% ravine overlap, 20% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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% weightpartial 65%

41.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 18 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 0 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~2,106 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m11

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)18

Transit stops (400 m)0

Estimated entrances3

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.33

Park perimeter2,106 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, 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%

66.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 19.7% estimated tree canopy; 68.8% inside the ravine system; 7.6% water surface; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.1/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 coverage19.7%

Canopy area1.75 ha

Inside ravine system68.8%

Water surface inside park7.6%

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

Estimated green92.4%

City-mapped trees inside polygon1

Tree density0.1 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)64.8

Sample points used157

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

54.4 / 100

85 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 85 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.2 m (~2 floors); 4.0 buildings per 100 m of 2,106 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m85

Buildings within 50 m85

Avg edge height5.2 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building8.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)85

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density4.04 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter2,106 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (3 types · 3 records)

playground
tennis
washroom

Nearby active-edge features (0)

No nearby features within 200 m of this park edge.

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
72th
Edge activation
38th
Connectivity
38th
Amenity diversity
94th
Natural comfort
81th
Enclosure
19th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Dean ParkNeighbourhood Park38
Havenbrook ParkRavine / Naturalized Park37
Fennimore ParkNeighbourhood Park39
Lora Hill ParkParkette38
Saddletree ParkParkette37

Most opposite parks

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

ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60

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 Scarboro Crescent 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.
Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
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.