Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Greenwood Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)South Riverdale

Greenwood Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 63, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Sheanaz Halfrose via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Greenwood Park scores 62.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (38). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban lifefamilies

Area · 6.37 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennisOff-leash dog areaFitnessPoolIce rinkGardenTable tennis
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaShelterBenchesCommunity centrePublic art

Getting around

Paths

891 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

3 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Typically 118 m to the nearest bench, and 189 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 83 m away. None of the 6 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
63/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
62.8 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
99th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=68)
Performance gap
+23
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Greenwood 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

  • Image of artwork: Jeffrey Baldwin Memorial Statue

    1Jeffrey Baldwin Memorial Statue

    Ruth Abernethy, 2016

    Sculpture · bronze

    This work was conceived as a way to recognize the life of Jeffrey Baldwin, a young boy who lived close to Greenwood Park and who passed away under tragic circumstances in 2002.

    Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art

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

Explain this score

Where did the 63 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
Connectivity77 · p97
+5.4
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Amenity Diversity70 · p100
+3.9
Edge Activation38 · p91
-3.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park77 · p81
+2.7
Natural Comfort42 · p39
-1.2

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

Greenwood Park works because its amenity diversity score (70) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (77) is also top decile (16 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Greenwood 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 amenity diversity (70, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (77) significantly outpaces natural comfort (42): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 63 versus an expected 40 for similar parks (large Neighbourhood Park) (gap +23).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 6.4 ha, framed by 16 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
38.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 14 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 4 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%
77.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 52 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 26 street intersections within 100 m; 6 streetcar or LRT stops, 5 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~1,030 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m30
Intersections within 100 m26
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)52
Transit stops (400 m)11 (0 subway/GO, 6 streetcar/LRT, 5 bus)
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.91
Park perimeter1,030 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
69.5 / 100

16 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, fitness, picnic, playground, sports_field, tennis, …). 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%
41.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.4% effective canopy (2.3% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1222 m; 67 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage2.3%
Canopy area0.15 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,222 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon67
Tree density10.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)15.8
Sample points used260

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
77.0 / 100

237 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (16 mid-rise, 221 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 23.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,030 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 16 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m237
Buildings within 50 m237
Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building11.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)16
Low-rise (< 3 floors)221
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density23.01 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,030 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (16 types · 57 records)

  • dog area
  • fitness
  • picnic
  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • washroom
  • bench
  • community centre
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • ice rink
  • pool
  • shelter
  • table tennis
  • art

Nearby active-edge features (30)

  • transit stop: Athletic Avenue1 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street East1 m
  • transit stop: Athletic Avenue17 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street East37 m
  • restaurant: Sushi on Gerrand42 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East49 m
  • transit stop: Alton Avenue53 m
  • transit stop: Alton Avenue54 m
  • transit stop: Greenwood Avenue56 m
  • transit stop: Greenwood Avenue67 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Pizza73 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East75 m
  • parking lot83 m
  • parking lot93 m
  • retail: Daisy Mart93 m
  • restaurant94 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • retail: Le Conciliabule114 m
  • community: The Inventors Nest118 m
  • community: The Inventors Nest120 m
  • retail: Mother Earth Centre138 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • restaurant: Maha's Egyptian Brunch147 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • transit stop: Dorothy Street177 m
  • transit stop: Kerr Road179 m
  • transit stop: Dorothy Street195 m
  • cafe: The Magpie Cakery196 m
  • transit stop: Leslie Street199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGreenwood 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
    99th
  • Edge activation
    91th
  • Connectivity
    97th
  • Amenity diversity
    100th
  • Natural comfort
    39th
  • Enclosure
    81th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

“This 6-hectare park features lighted ball diamonds, an outdoor pool, a playground & a dog park.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score79 / 100
79.0 / 100

p94 citywide · p92 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)76
Density / ha72
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
1,612
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Greenwood 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.
  • 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: 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.