Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Caledonia Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Yorkdale-Glen Park (31)confidence moderate

Caledonia Park

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Caledonia Park scores 35.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (60). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban lifefamilies

Area · 11.53 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports fieldVolleyball
Facilities
WashroomPicnic areaBenches
Vitality Score
36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
35.8 / 100
Citywide
56th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
31st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=71)
Performance gap
-4
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 36 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 · p27
-12.5
Amenity Diversity39 · p90
-2.3
Connectivity55 · p69
+1.1
Border Vacuum Risk60 (risk)
-1.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park56 · p28
+0.6
Natural Comfort49 · p55
-0.1

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

Caledonia Park works because its amenity diversity score (39) is in the top tier and its connectivity (55) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Caledonia Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (60).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (39, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Caledonia Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (56th) but typology rank is more modest (31st): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Parkalso reads as Destination Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 11.5 ha, framed by 2 mid-rise vs 0 towers. Secondary read: Destination Park (12 ha, 5 amenity types, connectivity 55 / comfort 49).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 10 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%
55.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 18 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,369 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)18
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.58
Park perimeter1,369 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
38.6 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (sports_field, washroom, bench, picnic, volleyball). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
49.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 7.9% estimated tree canopy; 8.7% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~655 m; 24 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.1/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage7.9%
Canopy area0.91 ha
Inside ravine system8.7%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)655 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon24
Tree density2.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)51.4
Sample points used265

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
56.2 / 100

48 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 46 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 3.5 buildings per 100 m of 1,369 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m48
Buildings within 50 m48
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building13.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)46
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density3.51 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,369 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
60.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

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 (5 types · 12 records)

  • sports field
  • washroom
  • bench
  • picnic
  • volleyball

Nearby active-edge features (38)

  • transit stop: Sage Avenue0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Lawrence Avenue West7 m
  • transit stop: Sage Avenue23 m
  • transit stop: Lawrence Avenue West26 m
  • transit stop: Caledonia Road26 m
  • retail: Designs by Daniel30 m
  • retail: M2 Beauty Studio40 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • retail: Sherwin-Williams45 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • retail: Habitat for Humanity ReStore50 m
  • parking lot51 m
  • retail: VTech Automotive Inc.56 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • retail: CKC Barber Shop65 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • transit stop: Caledonia Road66 m
  • transit stop: Leswyn Road78 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • transit stop: Leswyn Road108 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • retail: A1 Cash & Carry123 m
  • transit stop: Dufflaw Road128 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • parking lot133 m
  • transit stop: Dufflaw Road149 m
  • parking lot150 m
  • retail: Barrymore Furniture Gallaries156 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • parking lot176 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • retail: Imperial Carpet & Home Inc.182 m
  • parking lot185 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCaledonia Park
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    56th
  • Edge activation
    27th
  • Connectivity
    69th
  • Amenity diversity
    90th
  • Natural comfort
    55th
  • Enclosure
    28th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Most opposite parks

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

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 Caledonia Parkmatters. 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.

Rate this park on as many dimensions as you have an opinion about. 1 = not at all, 5 = strongly. Skip the ones you don't feel sure about. Aggregated only, no comments stored at the row level.

feels socially active
feels comfortable
feels safe
feels connected
feels welcoming
feels ecological / natural
feels good for lingering
feels family-friendly
feels culturally important
70%

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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.