Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Fairhaven Park, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Kingsview Village-The Westway

Fairhaven Park

Corridor / Linear Park, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~65th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Fairhaven Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Fairhaven Park scores 38.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 3.24 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundBasketballFitnessPool
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBenches

Getting around

Paths

430 m of mapped path, 97% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Typically 38 m to the nearest bench, and 111 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 10 m away. None of the 11 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
38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
38.4 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
65th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
71st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=70)
Performance gap
+3
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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 · p16
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)
-2.2
Connectivity59 · p75
+1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park59 · p38
+0.9
Natural Comfort54 · p70
+0.6
Amenity Diversity49 · p96
-0.3

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

Fairhaven Park works because its amenity diversity score (49) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (59) is also above-average (8 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Fairhaven Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (72).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (49, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.2× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 7 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
59.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 6 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~1,435 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)17
Transit stops (400 m)6 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 6 bus)
Estimated entrances8
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.35
Park perimeter1,435 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
48.5 / 100

8 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, fitness, playground, washroom, bench, drinking_water, …). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
54.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 27.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~238 m; 23 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.1/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: ravine, 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 system27.5%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)238 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon23
Tree density7.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)84.8
Sample points used91

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
59.3 / 100

63 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 60 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 4.4 buildings per 100 m of 1,435 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m63
Buildings within 50 m63
Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building53.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)60
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density4.39 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge2%
Tower share of edge3%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,435 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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: 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 (8 types · 19 records)

  • basketball
  • fitness
  • playground
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • picnic
  • pool

Nearby active-edge features (16)

  • parking lot10 m
  • parking lot15 m
  • parking lot24 m
  • parking lot25 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • transit stop: St Georges Boulevard65 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • transit stop135 m
  • transit stop: St Andrews Boulevard137 m
  • parking lot153 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • transit stop: St Andrews Boulevard172 m
  • parking lot: Islington Place Parking175 m
  • transit stop184 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFairhaven 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
    65th
  • Edge activation
    16th
  • Connectivity
    75th
  • Amenity diversity
    96th
  • Natural comfort
    70th
  • Enclosure
    38th

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 Fairhaven 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.