Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Banbury-Don Mills (42)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~66th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 37.7 / 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:escape into natureshaded summer use

Area · 0.46 ha

Vitality Score

38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

37.7 / 100

Citywide

66th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Ravine / Naturalized Park

71st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=200)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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 Activation1 · p63

-12.3

Amenity Diversity0 · p4

-10.0

Natural Comfort87 · p96

+5.6

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Connectivity39 · p33

-2.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park65 · p57

+1.5

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 (87) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (1) is also above-average (61% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (87, 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 (87) significantly outpaces connectivity (39) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
The park is enclosed by buildings (65) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 1) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+5 vs the median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 61% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

1.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 3 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%

39.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~356 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m2

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)6

Transit stops (400 m)8

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.84

Park perimeter356 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%

87.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 61.3% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~248 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage61.3%

Canopy area0.28 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)248 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)95.8

Sample points used31

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

64.8 / 100

10 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 25.9 m (~9 floors); 2.8 buildings per 100 m of 356 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges lean tall but still framed; 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m10

Buildings within 50 m10

Avg edge height25.9 m (~9 floors)

Tallest edge building41.2 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6

Low-rise (< 3 floors)2

Towers (≥ 13 floors)2

Frontage density2.81 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge60%

Tower share of edge20%

Blank-edge share (proxy)6%

Park perimeter356 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 (35)

transit stop — Eglinton Avenue East9 m
retail — Toyota Lexus on the Park29 m
parking lot53 m
parking lot72 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East93 m
transit stop — Sunnybrook Park103 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East105 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton112 m
transit stop — Leslie Street114 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East115 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton116 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East117 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East118 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East121 m
parking lot126 m
transit stop — Sunnybrook Park127 m
transit stop — Leslie Street129 m
transit stop — 1103 Leslie Street132 m
parking lot134 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East145 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East148 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East160 m
rail — Belleville Subdivision167 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton170 m
rail — Line 5 Eglinton170 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East171 m
rail — Belleville Subdivision172 m
transit stop — Opposite 1103 Leslie Street172 m
parking lot172 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East173 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East177 m
parking lot178 m
rail — Belleville Subdivision180 m
rail — Belleville Subdivision183 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue East191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
66th
Edge activation
63th
Connectivity
33th
Amenity diversity
4th
Natural comfort
96th
Enclosure
57th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park37
Adam'S Creek RavineRavine / Naturalized Park34
Trca Lands ( 21)Ravine / Naturalized Park38
Cindy Nicholas Drive WoodlotRavine / Naturalized Park37
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park37

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
Graham ParkUrban Plaza54

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.