Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Ravine SliversStonegate-Queensway (16)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

City Wide Open Space

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 34, rank ~49th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.

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

City Wide Open Space scores 34 / 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 · 0.15 ha

Vitality Score

34/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence

34.0 / 100

Citywide

50th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Ravine / Naturalized Park

53rd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=252)

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 34 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 · p12

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p17

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort74 · p87

+3.6

Connectivity34 · p24

-3.2

Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p42

+1.2

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 (74) is in the top tier (it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

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 (74) significantly outpaces connectivity (34) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
The park is enclosed by buildings (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 26% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 1 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%

33.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 6 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~177 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)2

Transit stops (400 m)6

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.13

Park perimeter177 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 60%

73.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 26.3% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~66 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 coverage26.3%

Canopy area0.04 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)66 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)73.8

Sample points used19

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

61.5 / 100

42 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 42 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.5 m (~2 floors); 23.7 buildings per 100 m of 177 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 m42

Buildings within 50 m42

Avg edge height4.5 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building7.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)42

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density23.73 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter177 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 (8)

parking lot92 m
parking lot120 m
transit stop — Royal York Ave at Coney Rd120 m
parking lot133 m
transit stop — Coney Road164 m
parking lot170 m
transit stop — Royal York Ave at Norseman St176 m
transit stop — Royal York Ave at Norseman St178 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
49th
Edge activation
12th
Connectivity
24th
Amenity diversity
17th
Natural comfort
87th
Enclosure
42th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceParkette34
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park35
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park34
Crescentwood ParkRavine / Naturalized Park35
City Wide Open SpaceParkette34

Most opposite parks

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

Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60

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.