Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Participate
Hillcrest Park — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Wychwood (94)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Hillcrest Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 66, rank ~100th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Hillcrest Park scores 65.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (44.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban lifefamilies

Area · 2.15 ha

Vitality Score
66/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
65.6 / 100
Citywide
100th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
100th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+28
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 66 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity72 · p93
+4.4
Natural Comfort75 · p88
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park77 · p79
+2.7
Amenity Diversity44 · p99
-1.1
Edge Activation54 · p97
+0.9

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

Hillcrest Park works because its amenity diversity score (44) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (54) is also top decile (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Hillcrest Park doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (44, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Hillcrest Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Strong physical conditions (score 66) but weak observed activity signals (7) — 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.
  • High connectivity (72) coexists with little programming evidence — easy to reach, but no recurring civic life detected.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 66 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +28).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.2 ha, framed by 7 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
53.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
72.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 31 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 16 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~597 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m18
Intersections within 100 m16
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)31
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.02
Park perimeter597 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
44.3 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, dog_area, picnic, playground, tennis, washroom). 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%
75.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 31.3% estimated tree canopy; 34.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~425 m; 39 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (18.1/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 coverage31.3%
Canopy area0.67 ha
Inside ravine system34.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)425 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon39
Tree density18.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)99.9
Sample points used150

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
76.5 / 100

135 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 128 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.3 m (~2 floors); 22.6 buildings per 100 m of 597 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m135
Buildings within 50 m135
Avg edge height7.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building16.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)128
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density22.63 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge5%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter597 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (6 types · 7 records)

  • basketball
  • dog area
  • picnic
  • playground
  • tennis
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (10)

  • transit stop — Christie Street2 m
  • transit stop — Davenport Road12 m
  • transit stop — Christie Street20 m
  • restaurant — Annabelle Pasta Bar21 m
  • restaurant — The Benue26 m
  • transit stop — Davenport Road45 m
  • transit stop63 m
  • transit stop102 m
  • transit stop166 m
  • retail — Renard and Company194 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHillcrest Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    100th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    93th
  • Amenity diversity
    99th
  • Natural comfort
    88th
  • Enclosure
    79th

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

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 50%
Overall activity
7/ 100
6.6 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
8real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
15unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Hillcrest 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.

  • 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 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.