Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Rennie Park, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)High Park-Swansea

Rennie Park

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by arturoAlejandro flores paredes via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Rennie Park scores 46.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 12.67 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennisPoolIce rink
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaShelterBenches

Getting around

Paths

1.4 km of mapped path, 31% paved.

9 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Typically 170 m to the nearest bench, and 304 m at the far end.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. None of the 16 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
47/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
46.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
88th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Waterfront Park
90th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=62)
Performance gap
+8
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Rennie Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view. City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 47 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 · p29
-12.5
Connectivity80 · p99
+6.1
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Natural Comfort79 · p92
+4.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p79
+2.6
Amenity Diversity55 · p98
+1.0

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

Rennie Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (55) is also top decile (22 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 33 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Rennie Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (80, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Rennie 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+8 vs the median in large Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 17% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 38% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (community, transit_stop) and 13 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%
80.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 20 mapped paths/walkways and 72 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 33 street intersections within 100 m; 4 streetcar or LRT stops, 18 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 16 estimated access points across ~2,824 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m25
Intersections within 100 m33
Paths/walkways (50 m)20
Sidewalk segments (50 m)72
Transit stops (400 m)22 (0 subway/GO, 4 streetcar/LRT, 18 bus)
Estimated entrances16
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.89
Park perimeter2,824 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
54.8 / 100

10 distinct amenity types in the park (picnic, playground, tennis, washroom, bench, drinking_water, …). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
78.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 37.8% estimated tree canopy; 99.3% inside the ravine system; 16.8% water surface; 167 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (13.2/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 coverage37.8%
Canopy area4.78 ha
Inside ravine system99.3%
Water surface inside park16.8%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green83.2%
City-mapped trees inside polygon167
Tree density13.2 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)79.1
Sample points used143

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
75.8 / 100

345 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (51 mid-rise, 294 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.0 m (~2 floors); 12.2 buildings per 100 m of 2,824 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 51 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m345
Buildings within 50 m345
Avg edge height7.0 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building14.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)51
Low-rise (< 3 floors)294
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density12.22 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge15%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter2,824 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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: 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 (10 types · 29 records)

  • picnic
  • playground
  • tennis
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • ice rink
  • pool
  • shelter
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (36)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot6 m
  • parking lot7 m
  • parking lot8 m
  • parking lot10 m
  • parking lot10 m
  • transit stop: Runnymede Rd at Morningside Ave16 m
  • transit stop: 44 Coe Hill Dr16 m
  • parking lot31 m
  • community: Swansea Community Recreation Centre37 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • transit stop: Windermere Ave at Saint Olaves Rd47 m
  • transit stop: Runnymede Rd at Morningside Ave48 m
  • transit stop: Windermere Ave at Saint Olaves Rd60 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • transit stop: 80 Coe Hill Dr81 m
  • parking lot82 m
  • transit stop: Lavinia Ave95 m
  • transit stop: Windermere Ave at Coe Hill Dr100 m
  • transit stop: Budgell Terrace108 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • transit stop: Ellis Avenue139 m
  • transit stop: Coe Hill Dr at The Queensway140 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • transit stop: Morningside Avenue142 m
  • transit stop: Ellis Avenue155 m
  • transit stop: Morningside Ave at Windermere Ave156 m
  • transit stop: 89 Windermere Ave157 m
  • transit stop: Ellis Avenue175 m
  • transit stop: Windermere Avenue186 m
  • transit stop: Windermere Avenue189 m
  • transit stop: Ellis Avenue190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureRennie 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
    88th
  • Edge activation
    29th
  • Connectivity
    99th
  • Amenity diversity
    98th
  • Natural comfort
    92th
  • Enclosure
    79th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match

“A 24-acre park with an ice rink, wading pool, tennis courts, playground, picnic shelter & ponds.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score55 / 100
54.9 / 100

p76 citywide · p75 within Waterfront Park

Volume (saturated)49
Density / ha28
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
481
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.99 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Rennie 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.
  • 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

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.