Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Pelmo Park-Humberlea (23)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 43, rank ~85th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 43 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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 · 0.48 ha

Vitality Score

43/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

43.0 / 100

Citywide

85th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

89th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Waterfront Park waterfront (n=112)

Performance gap

+13

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 43 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

Amenity Diversity0 · p56

-10.0

Edge Activation25 · p84

-6.3

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park95 · p98

+4.5

Natural Comfort44 · p46

-0.9

Connectivity54 · p62

+0.7

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 enclosure score (95) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (25) is also top quartile (43 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space 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 enclosure (95, top decile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 43 versus an expected 30 for similar parks (small Waterfront Park waterfront) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Waterfront Park: 30% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Urban Plaza (4804 m², paved (0% canopy), 19.2 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

25.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) 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%

53.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~281 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m7

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)13

Transit stops (400 m)9

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.78

Park perimeter281 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% weightpartial 45%

44.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 30.3% water surface; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: 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 system0.0%

Water surface inside park30.3%

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

Estimated green69.7%

City-mapped trees inside polygon2

Tree density2.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)88.5

Sample points used33

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

94.5 / 100

54 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (43 mid-rise, 10 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 10.5 m (~4 floors); 19.2 buildings per 100 m of 281 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 43 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m54

Buildings within 50 m54

Avg edge height10.5 m (~4 floors)

Tallest edge building46.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)43

Low-rise (< 3 floors)10

Towers (≥ 13 floors)1

Frontage density19.24 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge80%

Tower share of edge2%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter281 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 (3)

transit stop — Mainshep Road72 m
transit stop — Mainshep Road92 m
transit stop — 3034 Weston Road148 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
85th
Edge activation
84th
Connectivity
62th
Amenity diversity
56th
Natural comfort
46th
Enclosure
98th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Briar Hill - Chaplin ParkUrban Plaza43
Gerrard - Carlaw ParketteUrban Plaza37
George Milbrandt ParketteUrban Plaza32
Santa Chiara ParketteUrban Plaza40
GOWER PARK PLACE - Building GroundsParkette37

Most opposite parks

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

Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21

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.
Diversify what people can do in the park — playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden — even small additions raise this score.
Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

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.