Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Jeff Healey Park, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Stonegate-Queensway (16)confidence moderate

Jeff Healey Park

Waterfront Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 52, rank ~95th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Jeff Healey Park scores 51.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (24). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 5.66 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennis
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
51.9 / 100
Citywide
95th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Waterfront Park
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=64)
Performance gap
+13
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 52 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 Activation24 · p80
-6.5
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity66 · p86
+3.2
Natural Comfort71 · p86
+3.2
Amenity Diversity35 · p88
-3.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p51
+1.3

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

Jeff Healey Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (71) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Jeff Healey 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 (35, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Jeff Healey 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 (63) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 24): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 52 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (large Waterfront Park waterfront) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 10% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 27% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
24.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 2 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%
66.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 20 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~1,843 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m13
Intersections within 100 m20
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)19
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances7
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.70
Park perimeter1,843 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, tennis, bench). 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%
71.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 26.8% estimated tree canopy; 99.2% inside the ravine system; 9.8% water surface; 44 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.8/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 coverage26.8%
Canopy area1.52 ha
Inside ravine system99.2%
Water surface inside park9.8%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green90.2%
City-mapped trees inside polygon44
Tree density7.8 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)67.3
Sample points used123

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
62.5 / 100

174 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 168 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.9 m (~2 floors); 9.4 buildings per 100 m of 1,843 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m174
Buildings within 50 m174
Avg edge height4.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building11.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)168
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density9.44 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge3%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,843 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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: 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 (4 types · 13 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (32)

  • parking lot0 m
  • retail: CK & Friends85 m
  • retail: Jaymini Care90 m
  • transit stop: Grand Avenue92 m
  • parking lot95 m
  • retail: Elite Salon Agencies Ltd96 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • transit stop: Burma Drive101 m
  • retail: BG Music Academy / Guitar Shop102 m
  • retail: Soft Dove Cleaners107 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • transit stop: Lorne Avenue141 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • transit stop: Lorne Avenue161 m
  • transit stop: Park Lawn Rd at The Queensway164 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • restaurant: Mamma Martino's Pasta Pizzeria175 m
  • retail: Top Dogs177 m
  • transit stop: Park Lawn Rd at The Queensway179 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • transit stop: The Queensway at Park Lawn Road181 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • parking lot185 m
  • retail: Barkyard198 m
  • retail: Down 2 Earth Garden Centre199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureJeff Healey 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
    95th
  • Edge activation
    80th
  • Connectivity
    86th
  • Amenity diversity
    88th
  • Natural comfort
    86th
  • Enclosure
    51th

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 Jeff Healey 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.

  • 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.

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.