Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Waterfront Communities-The Island (77)confidence moderate

David Crombie Park

Parkette, one of the city's strongest overall (score 57, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

David Crombie Park scores 57.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (27.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.48 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field
Facilities
ShelterBenches
Vitality Score
57/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
57.3 / 100
Citywide
98th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=247)
Performance gap
+20
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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 57 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Amenity Diversity27 · p80
-4.5
Connectivity68 · p90
+3.7
Edge Activation59 · p98
+2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park68 · p67
+1.8
Natural Comfort45 · p45
-0.8

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 Crombie Park works because its edge activation score (59) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (68) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

David Crombie Park doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (59, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • 9 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 57 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +20).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (4751 m²) with strong building frontage (8.3 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
58.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) 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%
68.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 16 street intersections within 100 m; 32 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~278 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m16
Paths/walkways (50 m)14
Sidewalk segments (50 m)23
Transit stops (400 m)32
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.95
Park perimeter278 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, shelter, sports_field). 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% weightpartial 45%
44.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~9.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~525 m; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (14.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)525 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon14
Tree density14.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used32

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
67.6 / 100

23 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 4 low-rise, 9 tower); avg edge height 33.5 m (~11 floors); 8.3 buildings per 100 m of 278 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 9 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m23
Buildings within 50 m23
Avg edge height33.5 m (~11 floors)
Tallest edge building72.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)4
Towers (≥ 13 floors)9
Frontage density8.26 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge44%
Tower share of edge39%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter278 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 (3 types · 7 records)

  • bench
  • shelter
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (66)

  • transit stop: Lower Sherbourne Street4 m
  • transit stop: Lower Sherbourne Street27 m
  • transit stop: The Esplanade32 m
  • restaurant: Bellissimo36 m
  • retail: J.S. Hair Salon39 m
  • retail: Crown Cleaners44 m
  • transit stop: Frederick Street60 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • retail: Shannon’s Place78 m
  • retail: market cleaners83 m
  • retail: St. Lawrence Pro Hardware90 m
  • transit stop: Princess Street91 m
  • transit stop: George Street South99 m
  • parking lot106 m
  • transit stop: The Esplanade109 m
  • transit stop121 m
  • transit stop: Princess Street124 m
  • restaurant: Shawarma House134 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor134 m
  • retail: Cheers Fine Foods135 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor135 m
  • community: Toronto Public Library - St. Lawrence135 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor135 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Nova137 m
  • restaurant: Miyaki Sushi138 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor140 m
  • restaurant: Cluck Clucks Chicken140 m
  • transit stop: Front Street East140 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor142 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor143 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor145 m
  • retail: Gingko Floral Design147 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor148 m
  • retail: Rabba151 m
  • restaurant: On the Rocks151 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor152 m
  • school: St. Michael Catholic School152 m
  • restaurant: Subway153 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor154 m
  • restaurant: Farm’r155 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor155 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor158 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor162 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor162 m
  • retail: Royal Foodland165 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor165 m
  • retail: Market Place175 m
  • transit stop: Lower Jarvis Street177 m
  • retail: Pet Cuisine177 m
  • retail: Hair Market181 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor181 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor183 m
  • retail: Woof Gang184 m
  • retail: St. Lawrence Cleaners184 m
  • retail: Front Print Document Centre185 m
  • restaurant: Fuzen186 m
  • restaurant: McDonald's188 m
  • restaurant: Subway188 m
  • school: Downtown Alternative School189 m
  • community: St. Lawrence Community Recreation Centre190 m
  • transit stop: Front Street East193 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons199 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Hut Express199 m
  • transit stop: Lower Jarvis Street199 m
  • retail: Nova Supreme Dry Cleaners199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDavid Crombie 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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    98th
  • Connectivity
    90th
  • Amenity diversity
    80th
  • Natural comfort
    45th
  • Enclosure
    67th

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 Crombie 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.

  • 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.

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.