How do Toronto’s parks actually function?
A civic-research project that reads every park in the city through two complementary lenses — Jane Jacobs’ urban vitality and an ecological-comfort framework — and tries to make the tradeoffs between them visible. Not a ranking. An interactive atlas of how different kinds of parks do different urban jobs.
“The bedrock attribute of a successful city district is that a person must feel personally safe and secure on the street among all these strangers.”
— Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities
2997 have real-data inputs landed.
What the data says about Toronto’s parks
The Toronto Park Catalogue is bimodal
Most parks lean either toward urban integration or toward natural comfort. Genuinely balanced hybrid parks make up only ~7% of the Toronto Park Catalogue.
See the chartParkettes punch above their weight
Tiny pocket parks, framed by mid-rise rowhouses, routinely outscore much larger destinations on the model’s urban-vitality terms.
WhyRavine paradox
The same conditions that make ravine parks valuable as ecological retreats make them inaccessible as everyday urban places.
Read the essayWhere we’re least sure
Confidence reflects how much primary data we have for each park. Lower confidence means the score should be read carefully.
Marie Curtis Park
CGSPSouth Marine Drive Park
CGSPScarborough Village (139)
Rouge Park
CGSPRouge (131)
Rosetta Mcclain Gardens
CGSPSylvan Park - Gates Gully
CGSPScarborough Village (139)
Best in each typology
A Civic Square and a Ravine Park aren’t doing the same job — comparing them on a single score line is misleading. These are the highest-scoring parks within each typology. See /insights for more views.
- 1.Kew Gardens71
- 2.Hillcrest Park66
- 3.Trinity Bellwoods Park63
- 1.Toronto Zoo57
- 2.Beaches Park57
- 3.Valleyfield Park56
- 1.Trca Lands ( 8)49
- 2.Trca Lands ( 78)40
- 3.Trca Lands ( 38)38
- 1.Milliken Park46