Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)West Humber-Clairville (1)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Windwood Park

Parkette, above average overall (score 40, rank ~76th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Windwood Park scores 40.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.88 ha

Vitality Score

40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

40.1 / 100

Citywide

76th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

82nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Parkette (n=218)

Performance gap

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 40 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 · p32

-12.5

Amenity Diversity12 · p75

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Connectivity68 · p87

+3.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p52

+1.4

Natural Comfort53 · p65

+0.4

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

Windwood Park works because its connectivity score (68) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (12) is also above-average (45 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 11 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Windwood Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (68, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Windwood 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 (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (8833 m²) with strong building frontage (40.3 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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%

67.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 45 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~388 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m11

Paths/walkways (50 m)4

Sidewalk segments (50 m)13

Transit stops (400 m)45

Estimated entrances4

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.77

Park perimeter388 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%

52.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~18.2% effective canopy (1.5% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~500 m; 26 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (26.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.5%

Canopy area0.01 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)500 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon26

Tree density26.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)11.3

Sample points used66

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.5 / 100

156 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 156 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.9 m (~2 floors); 40.3 buildings per 100 m of 388 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m156

Buildings within 50 m156

Avg edge height4.9 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building6.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)156

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density40.26 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter388 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 (1 types · 1 records)

playground

Nearby active-edge features (20)

transit stop — Humber College Boulevard Stop #4482111 m
transit stop — Humber College Boulevard Stop #4486139 m
transit stop — Finch Ave West at Halesia Dr140 m
parking lot — Lot 12155 m
transit stop — Finch Avenue At Woodbine Downs Boulevard156 m
transit stop157 m
transit stop158 m
transit stop158 m
transit stop — Finch Avenue at Woodbine Downs Boulevard158 m
parking lot — Lot 10163 m
transit stop — Humber College Boulevard at Humberline Drive South Side172 m
parking lot — Lot 8184 m
transit stop — Finch Avenue at Highway 27189 m
restaurant — Osmow's190 m
retail — Hasty Market193 m
restaurant — Wok of Asia193 m
restaurant — Warrarich Meats194 m
retail — Deol Travel196 m
restaurant — Pizza Hub197 m
retail — Omesh199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
76th
Edge activation
32th
Connectivity
87th
Amenity diversity
75th
Natural comfort
65th
Enclosure
52th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Madelaine ParkCorridor / Linear Park37
Keelesdale ParkRavine / Naturalized Park30
Megan ParkNeighbourhood Park35
The Elms ParkRavine / Naturalized Park37
Maurice J. Breen ParkWaterfront Park32

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57

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 Windwood 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.

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 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.