Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Trudelle Park — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Eglinton East (138)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trudelle Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, above average overall (score 39, rank ~72th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

Trudelle Park scores 39.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (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 natureshaded summer use

Area · 0.66 ha

Vitality Score
39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
39.3 / 100
Citywide
72nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
75th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=200)
Performance gap
+7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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 · p60
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p84
-7.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park85 · p91
+3.5
Natural Comfort72 · p85
+3.3
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Connectivity56 · p67
+1.2

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

Trudelle Park works because its enclosure score (85) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (72) is also top quartile (24 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Trudelle Park'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 enclosure (85, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Trudelle Park 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 (85) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+7 vs the median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Waterfront Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 34% 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: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 9 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%
56.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~523 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.15
Park perimeter523 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (playground). 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%
72.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 34.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 2.1% water surface; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/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 coverage34.0%
Canopy area0.23 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park2.1%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green97.9%
City-mapped trees inside polygon3
Tree density3.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)58.1
Sample points used47

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
84.8 / 100

25 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (24 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 16.6 m (~6 floors); 4.8 buildings per 100 m of 523 m perimeter — strong 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 24 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m25
Buildings within 50 m25
Avg edge height16.6 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building31.4 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)24
Low-rise (< 3 floors)1
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density4.78 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge96%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter523 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: parking_lot, 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

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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (32)

  • parking lot27 m
  • parking lot34 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • transit stop — 1290 Danforth Road50 m
  • parking lot64 m
  • parking lot76 m
  • parking lot80 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • parking lot108 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • retail — Perfect Retouching Inc153 m
  • transit stop — Savarin Street161 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • transit stop — Wetherby Drive180 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • transit stop — Trudelle Street182 m
  • transit stop — Savarin Street182 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • transit stop — Barbados Boulevard194 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTrudelle Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    72th
  • Edge activation
    60th
  • Connectivity
    67th
  • Amenity diversity
    84th
  • Natural comfort
    85th
  • Enclosure
    91th

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 Trudelle 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.
  • 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.