Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Trca Lands ( 77) — site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Woburn (137)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 77)

Waterfront Park, below average overall (score 27, rank ~18th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

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

Trca Lands ( 77) scores 27 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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.

Best for:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 0.04 ha

Vitality Score
27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 53%

Data Confidence
27.0 / 100
Citywide
18th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
28th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in pocket Waterfront Park waterfront (n=88)
Performance gap
-3
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 27 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 · p29
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p37
-10.0
Connectivity23 · p11
-5.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p88
+3.3
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Natural Comfort43 · p45
-1.0

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 ( 77) works because its enclosure score (83) is in the top tier (3 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 77) is held back by connectivity (23, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low connectivity (23, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 77) 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 (83) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 22% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 0% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 15 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%
23.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~118 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)15
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter118 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% weightinferred 36%
43.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 22.2% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park22.2%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green77.8%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)68.4
Sample points used9

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
82.7 / 100

6 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 3 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 12.5 m (~4 floors); 5.1 buildings per 100 m of 118 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 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m6
Buildings within 50 m6
Avg edge height12.5 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building25.5 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)3
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.10 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge50%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter118 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 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

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 (42)

  • parking lot22 m
  • transit stop — Estate Drive45 m
  • parking lot47 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Progress Avenue South Side59 m
  • transit stop — Progress WB/Markham Road62 m
  • transit stop — Progress Avenue at Markham Road West Side62 m
  • highway — Markham Road68 m
  • highway — Markham Road70 m
  • highway — Markham Road74 m
  • highway — Markham Road76 m
  • highway — Markham Road77 m
  • restaurant — Madras Centennial Cafe78 m
  • highway — Markham Road78 m
  • retail — 99Travel & Tours Inc.79 m
  • retail — Hair Tips Salon79 m
  • highway — Markham Road79 m
  • parking lot80 m
  • highway — Markham Road83 m
  • highway — Markham Road85 m
  • retail — Cellteck87 m
  • restaurant — Young Asia Restaurant93 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Progress Avenue94 m
  • highway — Markham Road94 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • highway — Markham Road100 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • restaurant — Gino's Pizza111 m
  • parking lot111 m
  • highway — Markham Road127 m
  • transit stop — Progress Avenue at Markham Road East Side129 m
  • transit stop — Progress EB/Markham Road130 m
  • highway — Markham Road140 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • highway — Markham Road167 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • highway — Markham Road181 m
  • highway — Markham Road194 m
  • transit stop — Markham Road at Tuxedo Court195 m
  • highway — Markham Road198 m
  • parking lot199 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTrca Lands ( 77)

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    18th
  • Edge activation
    29th
  • Connectivity
    11th
  • Amenity diversity
    37th
  • Natural comfort
    45th
  • Enclosure
    88th

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 ( 77)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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

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.