Paul Coffey Park
Other, below average overall (score 29, rank ~26th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Paul Coffey Park, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoPaul Coffey Park scores 29.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: amenity diversity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 30.64 ha
What's here
Getting around
2.4 km of mapped path, 68% paved.
1 flight of steps on the mapped network.
Not enough mapped seating to assess (4 benches mapped).
Parking inside the park. 1 of 28 nearby lots reporting accessible spaces without a count.
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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 52%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 29 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
Paul Coffey Park works because its amenity diversity score (61) is one of the city's strongest (12 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).
What limits this park
Paul Coffey Park is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (48).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (61, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Paul Coffey Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.
Performance in context
- Although its citywide rank is low (26th), it ranks highly among similar others (56th): strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.
Typology classification
Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (30.6 ha, 12 amenity types, frontage 0.0/100m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 25 active uses (retail, restaurant, transit_stop) and 17 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~2,978 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
12 distinct amenity types in the park (art, basketball, bbq, bench, garden, ice_rink, …). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1173 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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
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 (12 types · 29 records)
- art
- basketball
- bbq
- bench
- garden
- ice rink
- picnic
- playground
- shelter
- skatepark
- sports field
- tennis
Nearby active-edge features (67)
- transit stop: Derry Road at Goreway Drive0 m
- parking lot0 m
- parking lot0 m
- parking lot0 m
- transit stop: Goreway Drive At Nashua Drive5 m
- transit stop25 m
- transit stop: Goreway Drive At Nashua Drive33 m
- transit stop: Derry Road at Goreway Drive33 m
- transit stop36 m
- transit stop36 m
- parking lot39 m
- retail: Cellular Hub50 m
- parking lot51 m
- parking lot53 m
- retail53 m
- transit stop: Goreway Drive At Derry Road54 m
- parking lot54 m
- retail: Comfort Night Mattresses55 m
- transit stop56 m
- parking lot57 m
- retail: Derry Dry Clean & Alteration58 m
- retail: The Hair Factory60 m
- parking lot60 m
- retail: Sham’s Esthetics And Wellness61 m
- parking lot62 m
- retail63 m
- parking lot64 m
- restaurant: Pizza Nova64 m
- parking lot65 m
- retail: The Cash Source66 m
- restaurant: Mr. Sub71 m
- parking lot71 m
- parking lot76 m
- restaurant: Licken Chicken78 m
- restaurant: Caribbean Star83 m
- parking lot86 m
- restaurant: Mr. Jerk88 m
- parking lot88 m
- parking lot90 m
- restaurant: Quesada92 m
- retail: Circle K93 m
- retail: Coin Laundry97 m
- retail: Nagarjun100 m
- restaurant: The Kebob101 m
- retail: Digicel103 m
- retail: L.A. Dollar104 m
- retail106 m
- parking lot107 m
- retail: Money Mart113 m
- transit stop119 m
- transit stop: Goreway Drive North Of Derry Road124 m
- rail125 m
- parking lot136 m
- rail137 m
- parking lot139 m
- transit stop: Derry Road East Of Goreway Drive145 m
- parking lot145 m
- parking lot149 m
- parking lot151 m
- parking lot154 m
- parking lot169 m
- parking lot169 m
- transit stop173 m
- parking lot174 m
- transit stop: Derry Road At Legion Road179 m
- restaurant: China Taste180 m
- parking lot184 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality26th
- Edge activation58th
- Connectivity13th
- Amenity diversity100th
- Natural comfort2th
- Enclosure18th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Garnetwood ParkOther29
- Laughton Heights ParkAthletic / Recreation Park29
- Bayview Glen ParkOther32
- Burnhamdale ParkAthletic / Recreation Park24
- Fleetwood ParkOther28
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Nordheimer RavineRavine / Naturalized Park62
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza67
- Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza62
- Shaw ParkParkette69
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 Paul Coffey 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.
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.
- Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
- Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
- Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.
Data sources
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.