Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Kingsview Village-The Westway (6)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Fairhaven Park

Corridor / Linear Park, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~60th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Fairhaven Park scores 36.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (60). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 3.24 ha

Vitality Score

36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

36.3 / 100

Citywide

60th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

65th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)

Performance gap

-0

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 36 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 · p43

-12.5

Amenity Diversity33 · p96

-3.3

Connectivity58 · p70

+1.6

Border Vacuum Risk60 (risk)

-1.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park59 · p31

+0.9

Natural Comfort54 · p67

+0.6

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

Fairhaven Park works because its amenity diversity score (33) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (58) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Fairhaven Park is held back by enclosure (59, below-average); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (60).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (33, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.2× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 6 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

20% weightmeasured 85%

57.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~1,435 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m10

Paths/walkways (50 m)7

Sidewalk segments (50 m)17

Transit stops (400 m)7

Estimated entrances8

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.35

Park perimeter1,435 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

33.4 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, fitness, playground, 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% weightpartial 45%

54.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 27.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~238 m; 23 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.1/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system27.5%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)238 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon23

Tree density7.1 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)84.8

Sample points used91

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

59.3 / 100

63 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 60 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 4.4 buildings per 100 m of 1,435 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m63

Buildings within 50 m63

Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building53.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)60

Towers (≥ 13 floors)2

Frontage density4.39 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge2%

Tower share of edge3%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,435 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

60.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (4 types · 4 records)

basketball
fitness
playground
washroom

Nearby active-edge features (15)

parking lot10 m
parking lot15 m
parking lot24 m
parking lot25 m
parking lot49 m
parking lot63 m
transit stop — St Georges Boulevard65 m
parking lot118 m
transit stop135 m
transit stop — St Andrews Boulevard137 m
parking lot153 m
parking lot171 m
transit stop — St Andrews Boulevard172 m
parking lot — Islington Place Parking175 m
transit stop184 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
60th
Edge activation
43th
Connectivity
70th
Amenity diversity
96th
Natural comfort
67th
Enclosure
31th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Fenside ParkAthletic / Recreation Park40
Wexford ParkRavine / Naturalized Park41
Iroquois ParkAthletic / Recreation Park40
Broadlands ParkAthletic / Recreation Park42
Bennington Heights ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43

Most opposite parks

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

ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60
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 Fairhaven 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.
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.