Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
David A. Balfour Park, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Rosedale-Moore Park

David A. Balfour Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, in the top tier overall (score 45, rank ~86th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Canmenwalker, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Data updated

David A. Balfour Park scores 45.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into natureshaded summer use

Area · 26.47 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBenchesPublic art

Getting around

Paths

7.2 km of mapped path, 56% paved.

17 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (7 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 20 m away. None of the 17 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.

Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.

Vitality Score
45/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
45.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
86th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
90th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in very large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=37)
Performance gap
+7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

More photographs of David A. Balfour Park

2 more, from Wikimedia Commons and from people who sent them in. Each is someone else’s work: select one to see who took it and the licence it carries.

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
David A. Balfour Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view. City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Public art in this park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 45 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 · p28
-12.5
Connectivity85 · p100
+6.9
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park86 · p92
+3.6
Natural Comfort71 · p86
+3.1
Amenity Diversity46 · p95
-0.9

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

David A. Balfour Park works because its connectivity score (85) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (46) is also top decile (21 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 58 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

David A. Balfour 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 (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (85, top decile).

Jacobs reading

David A. Balfour Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (86) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+7 vs the median in very large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Destination Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 76% ravine overlap, 30% canopy. Secondary read: Destination Park (26 ha, 6 amenity types, connectivity 85 / comfort 71).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (retail, restaurant, transit_stop) and 14 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.

Source: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
84.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 100 mapped paths/walkways and 115 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 58 street intersections within 100 m; 2 subway or GO stations, 2 streetcar or LRT stops, 17 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 32 estimated access points across ~4,277 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m36
Intersections within 100 m58
Paths/walkways (50 m)100
Sidewalk segments (50 m)115
Transit stops (400 m)21 (2 subway/GO, 2 streetcar/LRT, 17 bus)
Estimated entrances32
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.84
Park perimeter4,277 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
45.7 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, washroom, art, bench, drinking_water, picnic). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork in the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
70.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 29.8% estimated tree canopy; 76.0% inside the ravine system; 2.4% water surface; 85 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.2/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage29.8%
Canopy area7.89 ha
Inside ravine system76.0%
Water surface inside park2.4%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green97.6%
City-mapped trees inside polygon85
Tree density3.2 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)62.6
Sample points used292

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
86.0 / 100

405 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (122 mid-rise, 260 low-rise, 23 tower); avg edge height 12.1 m (~4 floors); 9.5 buildings per 100 m of 4,277 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 23 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 122 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m405
Buildings within 50 m405
Avg edge height12.1 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building83.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)122
Low-rise (< 3 floors)260
Towers (≥ 13 floors)23
Frontage density9.47 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge30%
Tower share of edge6%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter4,277 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision, North Toronto Subdivision. 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (6 types · 24 records)

  • playground
  • washroom
  • art
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (57)

  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision0 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision0 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision7 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision8 m
  • transit stop: Avoca Avenue15 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision16 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision19 m
  • parking lot20 m
  • transit stop: Avoca Avenue23 m
  • parking lot28 m
  • parking lot54 m
  • parking lot70 m
  • retail: Wine Rack80 m
  • restaurant: Twisted Indian Wraps82 m
  • parking lot82 m
  • parking lot85 m
  • retail: Skin society bar86 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • retail: Farm Boy87 m
  • transit stop90 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • transit stop: Inglewood Drive93 m
  • restaurant: YummySlice Pizza95 m
  • retail: Wine Rack97 m
  • retail: Ava Pharmacy98 m
  • retail: Towne Dry Cleaners99 m
  • transit stop: Inglewood Drive99 m
  • retail: Forest Spa100 m
  • retail: Hearing Solutions133 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • restaurant: Kofuko Sushi141 m
  • retail: The Top Knot143 m
  • rail143 m
  • rail143 m
  • restaurant: Megumi Mazesoba146 m
  • parking lot: Toronto Parking Authority147 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision152 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision155 m
  • retail: Northern Artists ProLab156 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Station164 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Station166 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • transit stop: South Drive171 m
  • parking lot: City of Toronto Reserved Parking174 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Station176 m
  • retail: Class One Dry Cleaners184 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Station188 m
  • retail: The Chocolate Tulip192 m
  • transit stop: South Drive192 m
  • restaurant: Brownes Bistro197 m
  • retail: Blowdry Lounge200 m
  • retail: i.D. Eyewear200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDavid A. Balfour 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
    86th
  • Edge activation
    28th
  • Connectivity
    100th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    86th
  • Enclosure
    92th

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 David A. Balfour Park matters. 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.
  • 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: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.