Frank Faubert Wood Lot
Ravine / Naturalized Park, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~86th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.
Photo by Himauli Patel via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Frank Faubert Wood Lot scores 43.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 5.40 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Street context
Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Top-down view
City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.
City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer
Explain this score
Where did the 44 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
- The park is enclosed by buildings (68) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
- Strong physical conditions (score 44) but weak observed activity signals (9) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+8 vs the median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 99% ravine overlap, 71% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 2.2× a circle of equal area).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 21 active uses (cafe, transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 15 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 61 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 55 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~1,789 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
1 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: 71.1% estimated tree canopy; 99.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~816 m; 45 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.3/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).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
73 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 51 low-rise, 13 tower); avg edge height 20.9 m (~7 floors); 4.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,789 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 13 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 (1 types · 1 records)
- dog area
Nearby active-edge features (65)
- transit stop — Borough Approach East4 m
- transit stop — Borough Approach West5 m
- parking lot38 m
- transit stop — Packard Boulevard40 m
- transit stop — Ellesmere Rd at Saratoga Dr41 m
- transit stop — Ellesmere Rd at McCowan Rd44 m
- transit stop — Borough Approach East45 m
- parking lot47 m
- transit stop — McCowan Road49 m
- restaurant — All-Star Wings & Ribs49 m
- parking lot53 m
- parking lot58 m
- parking lot60 m
- transit stop — Ellesmere Road63 m
- parking lot64 m
- parking lot65 m
- retail — Global Pet Foods65 m
- restaurant — Subway65 m
- retail — But 'n' Ben Scottish Bakery71 m
- parking lot71 m
- restaurant — St Andrews Fish & Chips73 m
- parking lot74 m
- parking lot75 m
- parking lot77 m
- parking lot77 m
- parking lot80 m
- parking lot84 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons87 m
- retail — Circle K88 m
- parking lot88 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons89 m
- transit stop — Ellesmere Road91 m
- restaurant — St. Louis Bar & Grill92 m
- restaurant — Burger King96 m
- transit stop — Ellesmere Rd at Brimley Rd100 m
- retail — Neighbours100 m
- parking lot102 m
- transit stop — McCowan Road106 m
- parking lot109 m
- transit stop — Brimley Rd at Ellesmere Road115 m
- parking lot116 m
- parking lot117 m
- transit stop — McCowan Road118 m
- retail — Perfect Salon & Nails121 m
- parking lot — GreenP Carpark 710124 m
- transit stop — Bushby Drive at McCowan Road126 m
- parking lot131 m
- transit stop — McCowan Road at Town Centre Court136 m
- parking lot138 m
- transit stop — McCowan Road at Bushby Drive North Side138 m
- parking lot148 m
- retail — Gong Cha150 m
- parking lot160 m
- retail — Black Diamond Barber Shop169 m
- transit stop — Brimley Rd at Ellesmere Road174 m
- parking lot174 m
- transit stop — Brimley Rd at Golden Gate Court184 m
- transit stop — Town Centre/Scarborough Centre Station184 m
- transit stop — Brimley Rd at Omni Dr185 m
- transit stop — Ellesmere Rd at Brimley Rd190 m
- parking lot194 m
- parking lot195 m
- transit stop — Triton Road at McCowan Road198 m
- transit stop — Triton EB/McCowan199 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality86th
- Edge activation28th
- Connectivity89th
- Amenity diversity73th
- Natural comfort96th
- Enclosure65th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Merrill Bridge Road ParkRavine / Naturalized Park39
- Upwood GreenbeltWaterfront Park34
- Moccasin Trail ParkRavine / Naturalized Park32
- Mallow ParkRavine / Naturalized Park38
- Hague ParkWaterfront Park40
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
- Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
- Danforth Gardens ParkParkette42
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only — no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
p24 citywide · p33 within Ravine / Naturalized Park
Source: Google Places API · match high (0.94 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of Frank Faubert Wood Lotmatters. 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.
- 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.