Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Trca Lands ( 72) — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Ravine SliversRustic (28)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 72)

Ravine / Naturalized Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 22, rank ~5th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.

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

Trca Lands ( 72) scores 21.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (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 · 0.90 ha

Vitality Score
22/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
21.7 / 100
Citywide
5th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
4th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=200)
Performance gap
-11
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 22 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 · p40
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p46
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity29 · p18
-4.1
Natural Comfort63 · p77
+1.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p54
+1.4

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

Trca Lands ( 72) works because its natural comfort score (63) is above average (it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 72) is held back by connectivity (29, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low connectivity (29, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 72) is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (63) significantly outpaces connectivity (29) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -11; cohort: small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Waterfront Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 19% canopy. Secondary read: Waterfront Park (nearest waterbody within ~0 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop, community) and 11 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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% weightpartial 65%
29.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~490 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)13
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.41
Park perimeter490 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%
62.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 19.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 1.6% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage19.0%
Canopy area0.17 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park1.6%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green98.4%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)45.9
Sample points used63

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.0 / 100

8 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 17.9 m (~6 floors); 1.6 buildings per 100 m of 490 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m8
Buildings within 50 m8
Avg edge height17.9 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building29.1 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.63 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge75%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)46%
Park perimeter490 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: Black Creek Drive, Highway 400, Highway 400, Highway 400, Highway 400, Highway 400, Highway 400. 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 (40)

  • transit stop4 m
  • transit stop16 m
  • highway — Highway 40023 m
  • highway — Highway 40026 m
  • highway — Highway 40026 m
  • highway — Highway 40038 m
  • highway — Highway 40040 m
  • highway — Black Creek Drive41 m
  • highway — Highway 40049 m
  • community67 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • highway — Highway 40088 m
  • highway — Highway 40096 m
  • highway — Black Creek Drive97 m
  • highway — Black Creek Drive107 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • transit stop — Jane Street117 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • transit stop — Stella Street133 m
  • transit stop — Maple Leaf Drive135 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • transit stop — Church Street148 m
  • transit stop — Stella Street155 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • retail — Trende Barber Shop161 m
  • transit stop — Jane Street167 m
  • restaurant — Pelmo Family Restaurant168 m
  • retail — Circle K169 m
  • retail — Praga Hair Studio171 m
  • retail — Pelmo Mini Mart172 m
  • restaurant — Domino's174 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons174 m
  • parking lot175 m
  • parking lot177 m
  • highway — Highway 400179 m
  • highway — Highway 400191 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • parking lot196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTrca Lands ( 72)

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    5th
  • Edge activation
    40th
  • Connectivity
    18th
  • Amenity diversity
    46th
  • Natural comfort
    77th
  • Enclosure
    54th

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 Trca Lands ( 72)matters. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.