Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Collingwood Park — site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Agincourt South-Malvern West (128)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Collingwood Park

Waterfront Park, below average overall (score 27, rank ~17th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Collingwood Park scores 26.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (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:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 2.42 ha

Vitality Score
27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
26.8 / 100
Citywide
17th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
26th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Waterfront Park waterfront (n=126)
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 · p27
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p73
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park68 · p65
+1.8
Connectivity52 · p59
+0.4
Natural Comfort48 · p56
-0.3

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

Collingwood Park works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its enclosure (68) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Collingwood Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, below-average).

Jacobs reading

Collingwood Park is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (68) 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: 6% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (68% ravine overlap, 1% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant, cafe) and 16 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%
52.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~894 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.34
Park perimeter894 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%
48.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.7% estimated tree canopy; 67.6% inside the ravine system; 6.1% water surface; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.1/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 coverage0.7%
Canopy area0.02 ha
Inside ravine system67.6%
Water surface inside park6.1%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green93.9%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density2.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)59.0
Sample points used148

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
67.9 / 100

41 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 37 low-rise, 4 tower); avg edge height 10.2 m (~3 floors); 4.6 buildings per 100 m of 894 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 4 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m41
Buildings within 50 m41
Avg edge height10.2 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building62.1 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)37
Towers (≥ 13 floors)4
Frontage density4.58 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge10%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter894 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: parking_lot, Uxbridge Subdivision, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, Uxbridge Subdivision. 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 (56)

  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision0 m
  • restaurant — Biryani Bar2 m
  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision4 m
  • restaurant — Jakylynne's Catering and Take-out5 m
  • parking lot7 m
  • parking lot7 m
  • parking lot11 m
  • parking lot14 m
  • retail — 20/20 Ca$h Ru$$h15 m
  • retail — Convenience18 m
  • parking lot20 m
  • restaurant — Kabob Guys22 m
  • parking lot22 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Ave at Reichmount Ave39 m
  • parking lot42 m
  • retail47 m
  • retail — Visionary Optical53 m
  • parking lot54 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • parking lot77 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • retail — Inter Auto Centre82 m
  • cafe — Mei Tea91 m
  • parking lot92 m
  • retail — Air Express103 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Ave at Reichmount Ave106 m
  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision108 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • retail — Spy & Surveillance Equipment109 m
  • rail — Belleville Subdivision111 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • rail — Belleville Subdivision115 m
  • retail — Vape Station124 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision141 m
  • rail143 m
  • rail — Uxbridge Subdivision144 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Avenue East145 m
  • restaurant — Pho Vietnamese Cuisine145 m
  • transit stop — Kennedy Road146 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • restaurant — Domino's148 m
  • parking lot150 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • retail — 99 Health & Beauty Centre163 m
  • transit stop — Agincourt174 m
  • rail180 m
  • transit stop — Lamont Avenue184 m
  • parking lot188 m
  • parking lot — Agincourt GO Parking193 m
  • transit stop — Sheppard Avenue East193 m
  • parking lot193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCollingwood Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    17th
  • Edge activation
    27th
  • Connectivity
    59th
  • Amenity diversity
    73th
  • Natural comfort
    56th
  • Enclosure
    65th

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 Collingwood 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • 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.