Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Rosedale-Moore Park

Hazeldean Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~78th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

Hazeldean Park scores 41.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 0.48 ha

What's here

Facilities
Benches

Getting around

Paths

143 m of mapped path, 30% paved.

1 flight of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (1 bench mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 29 m away. None of the 5 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
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
41.8 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
78th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
81st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
33
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=207)
Performance gap
+9
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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 42 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 · p61
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p66
-7.6
Connectivity73 · p95
+4.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park91 · p97
+4.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort46 · p49
-0.6

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

Hazeldean Park works because its enclosure score (91) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (73) is also top decile (25 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Hazeldean 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 enclosure (91, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (73) significantly outpaces natural comfort (46): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (91) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • 5 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+9 vs the median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 0% canopy. Secondary read: Urban Plaza (4801 m², paved (0% canopy), 15.1 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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%
73.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~344 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m17
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)19
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.03
Park perimeter344 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (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% weightpartial 45%
46.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.5% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~829 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.0/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. 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 system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)829 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density5.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used34

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
90.9 / 100

52 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (25 mid-rise, 22 low-rise, 5 tower); avg edge height 15.5 m (~5 floors); 15.1 buildings per 100 m of 344 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 5 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 25 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m52
Buildings within 50 m52
Avg edge height15.5 m (~5 floors)
Tallest edge building50.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)25
Low-rise (< 3 floors)22
Towers (≥ 13 floors)5
Frontage density15.11 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge48%
Tower share of edge10%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter344 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (30)

  • parking lot29 m
  • retail: Rabba101 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Hut Express116 m
  • parking lot127 m
  • restaurant: La Prep132 m
  • restaurant: El Gourmet138 m
  • retail: The Printing House140 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • restaurant: Villa Madina149 m
  • rail151 m
  • rail151 m
  • restaurant: Thaï Express158 m
  • restaurant: Subway160 m
  • restaurant: A&W168 m
  • restaurant: Manchu Wok177 m
  • retail177 m
  • restaurant: PI CO.179 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons185 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • restaurant: Booster Juice190 m
  • restaurant: Salad Days190 m
  • retail: Vivid Cleaners & Alterations194 m
  • retail: INS Market196 m
  • restaurant: The Bagel Stop196 m
  • highway: Bloor Street East197 m
  • highway: Bloor Street East197 m
  • highway: Bloor Street East198 m
  • restaurant: Yuzuki198 m
  • restaurant: Mad Radish200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHazeldean 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
    78th
  • Edge activation
    61th
  • Connectivity
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    66th
  • Natural comfort
    49th
  • Enclosure
    97th

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 Hazeldean 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.
  • 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.