Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Hillcrest Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Wychwood (94)confidence moderate

Hillcrest Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 69, rank ~100th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Hillcrest Park scores 69.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (56). 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 · 2.41 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundTennisBasketballOff-leash dog areaPoolGarden
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBenches
Vitality Score
69/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
69.2 / 100
Citywide
100th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
100th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=393)
Performance gap
+30
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 69 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
Connectivity72 · p94
+4.4
Natural Comfort76 · p90
+4.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park78 · p82
+2.8
Edge Activation57 · p98
+1.8
Amenity Diversity56 · p99
+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

Hillcrest Park works because its amenity diversity score (56) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (57) is also top decile (10 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Hillcrest 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 (56, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 69 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +30).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.4 ha, framed by 10 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
57.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
72.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 32 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 16 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~617 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m18
Intersections within 100 m16
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)32
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.92
Park perimeter617 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
56.0 / 100

10 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, dog_area, picnic, playground, tennis, washroom, …). 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%
76.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 32.5% estimated tree canopy; 38.6% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~424 m; 55 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (22.8/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 coverage32.5%
Canopy area0.78 ha
Inside ravine system38.6%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)424 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon55
Tree density22.8 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)99.4
Sample points used166

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
78.4 / 100

142 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 132 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.4 m (~2 floors); 23.0 buildings per 100 m of 617 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 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m142
Buildings within 50 m142
Avg edge height7.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building16.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)132
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density23.02 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter617 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 (10 types · 28 records)

  • basketball
  • dog area
  • picnic
  • playground
  • tennis
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • pool

Nearby active-edge features (10)

  • transit stop: Christie Street1 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Road3 m
  • transit stop: Christie Street18 m
  • restaurant: Annabelle Pasta Bar20 m
  • restaurant: The Benue25 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Road42 m
  • transit stop58 m
  • transit stop97 m
  • transit stop162 m
  • retail: Renard and Company190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHillcrest 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
    100th
  • Edge activation
    98th
  • Connectivity
    94th
  • Amenity diversity
    99th
  • Natural comfort
    90th
  • Enclosure
    82th

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 Hillcrest 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.

  • This park already scores well across all measured dimensions.

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.