Waterfront Parkcluster ·Ravine SliversBedford Park-Nortown (39)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Waterfront Park, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~35th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 30.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 0.42 ha

Vitality Score

31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 53%

Data Confidence

30.9 / 100

Citywide

35th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

49th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Waterfront Park waterfront (n=112)

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 31 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 · p49

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p55

-10.0

Connectivity16 · p6

-6.8

Natural Comfort84 · p94

+5.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park52 · p17

+0.2

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

City Wide Open Space works because its natural comfort score (84) is in the top tier (69% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by connectivity (16, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (84, top decile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (84) significantly outpaces connectivity (16) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 10% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 69% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (cafe) and 2 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% weightpartial 45%

16.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~367 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m0

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)0

Transit stops (400 m)20

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter367 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%

0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%

83.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 69.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 10.3% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage69.0%

Canopy area0.29 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park10.3%

Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)

Estimated green89.7%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)78.1

Sample points used29

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%

51.8 / 100

3 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 17.1 m (~6 floors); 0.8 buildings per 100 m of 367 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m3

Buildings within 50 m3

Avg edge height17.1 m (~6 floors)

Tallest edge building22.9 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2

Low-rise (< 3 floors)1

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.82 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge67%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)73%

Park perimeter367 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (17)

parking lot75 m
cafe — Tim Hortons91 m
parking lot93 m
parking lot102 m
parking lot115 m
parking lot122 m
parking lot139 m
parking lot141 m
restaurant — Auberge du Pommier Restaurant156 m
transit stop — William Carson Crescent161 m
highway — Yonge Street175 m
highway — Yonge Street176 m
highway — Yonge Street184 m
highway — Yonge Street186 m
highway — Yonge Street188 m
transit stop — William Carson Crescent194 m
highway — Yonge Street196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
35th
Edge activation
49th
Connectivity
6th
Amenity diversity
55th
Natural comfort
94th
Enclosure
17th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Trca Lands ( 34)Ravine / Naturalized Park31
Toronto Islands - Snake IslandRavine / Naturalized Park31
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park30
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park31
Trca Lands ( 73)Waterfront Park30

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
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60
Norman Jewison ParkUrban 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 City Wide Open Spacematters. 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.
Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
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.