Trca Lands ( 68)
Waterfront Park, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~31th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Trca Lands ( 68) scores 30.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 1.11 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 30 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- Natural comfort (70) significantly outpaces connectivity (28) — 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.
Typology classification
Classified as Waterfront Park: 8% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 26% canopy).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop, community) and 8 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~519 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 25.6% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 7.7% 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).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
13 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 24.3 m (~8 floors); 2.5 buildings per 100 m of 519 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges lean tall but still framed; 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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
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 (42)
- parking lot31 m
- parking lot35 m
- transit stop36 m
- community43 m
- transit stop50 m
- parking lot51 m
- parking lot66 m
- parking lot68 m
- parking lot76 m
- parking lot77 m
- parking lot85 m
- highway — Highway 400105 m
- transit stop — Maple Leaf Drive108 m
- parking lot113 m
- highway — Black Creek Drive114 m
- transit stop — Jane Street124 m
- highway — Highway 400125 m
- highway — Highway 400126 m
- highway — Highway 400131 m
- parking lot135 m
- retail — Trende Barber Shop137 m
- retail — Oba Market147 m
- retail — George's Food Store148 m
- transit stop — Jane Street151 m
- highway — Black Creek Drive153 m
- restaurant — Jasmin's Grill154 m
- parking lot154 m
- highway — Black Creek Drive154 m
- parking lot155 m
- restaurant — Lola's Catering156 m
- retail — Cash King159 m
- retail — All Nation Live Bait161 m
- transit stop — Church Street162 m
- cafe — Coffee Pot Cafe163 m
- retail — Raphael Hair Designers165 m
- retail — Helen Hair Design & Esthetics167 m
- retail — Dry Cleaning169 m
- highway — Highway 400177 m
- retail — Circle K179 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons183 m
- highway — Highway 400191 m
- restaurant — Pelmo Family Restaurant198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality31th
- Edge activation56th
- Connectivity17th
- Amenity diversity64th
- Natural comfort83th
- Enclosure56th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Massey Creek RavineRavine / Naturalized Park32
- City Wide Open SpaceParkette24
- East Highland Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park21
- Massey Creek RavineWaterfront Park32
- City Wide Open SpaceParkette34
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
- 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 Trca Lands ( 68)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.
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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.