Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Bayview Village

Ethennonnhawahstihnen Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 57, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Submit a photo

Data updated

Ethennonnhawahstihnen Park scores 57 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (32). 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 · 2.71 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldIce rinkGarden
Facilities
WashroomPublic art

Getting around

Paths

1.1 km of mapped path, 100% paved.

7 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 51 m away. 1 of 5 nearby lots reporting 4 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
57/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
57.0 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
98th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
96th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=357)
Performance gap
+17
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).

Public art in this park

Near the park

  • Image of artwork: Maple Leaf Trellis

    7Maple Leaf Trellis

    Demakersvan, 2019

    Sculpture · Integrated

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

  • Image of artwork: Maple Leaf Fence

    8Maple Leaf Fence

    Demakersvan, 2019

    Multidisciplinary · Integrated

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

  • Image of artwork: Ebb and Flow

    9Ebb and Flow

    Michael Belmore, 2019

    Sculpture · Integrated

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

  • Image of artwork: Droplet

    10Droplet

    Kimiis inc. Studio, 2019

    Multidisciplinary · Integrated

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

  • Image of artwork: A Scholars Rock Cut In Half To Reveal A Map Of Lake Ontario

    11A Scholars Rock Cut In Half To Reveal A Map Of Lake Ontario

    Ken Lum, 2019

    Sculpture · Integrated

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

  • Image of artwork: Tropos

    12Tropos

    An Te Liu, 2019

    Sculpture · Integrated

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

  • Cracked Ice, situated at the edge of the park makes a cheeky reference back to the water themes expressed in many of the artworks in the park. In this instance, it also refers to the idea of screens as an architectural device.

    13Cracked Ice

    Ken Lum, 2019

    Sculpture · Glass and Steel

    Cracked Ice, situated at the edge of the park makes a cheeky reference back to the water themes expressed in many of the artworks in the park. In this instance, it also refers to the idea of screens as an architectural device.

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

  • An art sign marks one of the entry features at the south side of the park. This is based on a drawing showing the movement of the water flow. Art signs are useful in wayfinding for visitors also making a subtle yet elegant art statement within the park.

    14Ebb and Flow

    Michael Belmore, 2019

    Sculpture · Glass and Steel

    An art sign marks one of the entry features at the south side of the park. This is based on a drawing showing the movement of the water flow. Art signs are useful in wayfinding for visitors also making a subtle yet elegant art statement within the park.

    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 57 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
Edge Activation32 · p87
-4.5
Connectivity71 · p92
+4.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park73 · p76
+2.3
Natural Comfort47 · p50
-0.4
Amenity Diversity52 · p98
+0.4

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

Ethennonnhawahstihnen Park works because its amenity diversity score (52) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (71) is also top decile (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Ethennonnhawahstihnen 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 (52, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • 24 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 57 versus an expected 40 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +17).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.7 ha, framed by 31 mid-rise vs 24 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (retail, cafe) 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
70.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 42 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 2 subway or GO stations, 8 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~827 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)42
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)10 (2 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 8 bus)
Estimated entrances10
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.60
Park perimeter827 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
52.0 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, washroom, art, garden, ice_rink, sports_field). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 6 public artworks in the park and 8 nearby add a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
47.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~12.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~506 m; 48 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (17.7/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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 system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)506 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon48
Tree density17.7 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used189

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
73.4 / 100

87 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (31 mid-rise, 32 low-rise, 24 tower); avg edge height 30.1 m (~10 floors); 10.5 buildings per 100 m of 827 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 24 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 31 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m87
Buildings within 50 m87
Avg edge height30.1 m (~10 floors)
Tallest edge building119.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)31
Low-rise (< 3 floors)32
Towers (≥ 13 floors)24
Frontage density10.52 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge36%
Tower share of edge28%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter827 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 (6 types · 13 records)

  • playground
  • washroom
  • art
  • garden
  • ice rink
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (22)

  • parking lot51 m
  • cafe: Toffee Shop53 m
  • retail: Walk in the Park Cleaners53 m
  • retail: Concord Park Place Presentation Centre67 m
  • cafe: Sharetea69 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • highway: Highway 401 Collector122 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Av - South130 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • transit stop: Blue Ridge Road139 m
  • transit stop: Bessarion Avenue141 m
  • transit stop: Bessarion162 m
  • transit stop: Burbank Drive - Bessarion Station169 m
  • transit stop: Blue Ridge Road West Side169 m
  • transit stop: Bessarion170 m
  • retail: Cornerstone Market173 m
  • highway: Highway 401 Collector180 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Av - North182 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • cafe: Starbucks183 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • highway: Highway 401 Express198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureEthennonnhawahstihnen 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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    87th
  • Connectivity
    92th
  • Amenity diversity
    98th
  • Natural comfort
    50th
  • Enclosure
    76th

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 Ethennonnhawahstihnen 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.