Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Stan Wadlow Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Woodbine-Lumsden (60)confidence moderate

Stan Wadlow Park

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

Photo by Hobert Nadales via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Stan Wadlow Park scores 51.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (17.1). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban lifefamilies

Area · 9.30 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennisSkateparkOff-leash dog areaPoolIce rinkGardenTable tennisSports court
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBenchesCommunity centre
Vitality Score
52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
51.9 / 100
Citywide
95th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
91st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=71)
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Stan Wadlow 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 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 Activation17 · p77
-8.2
Connectivity78 · p98
+5.5
Amenity Diversity66 · p100
+3.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p66
+1.7
Natural Comfort46 · p49
-0.6
Border Vacuum Risk48 (risk)
+0.2

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

Stan Wadlow Park works because its amenity diversity score (66) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (78) is also top decile (15 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Stan Wadlow Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 48.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (66, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (78) significantly outpaces natural comfort (46): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17): 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 Neighbourhood Park) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 9.3 ha, framed by 8 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
17.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop) and 5 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%
77.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 21 mapped paths/walkways and 41 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 21 street intersections within 100 m; 30 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~1,325 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m20
Intersections within 100 m21
Paths/walkways (50 m)21
Sidewalk segments (50 m)41
Transit stops (400 m)30
Estimated entrances8
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.51
Park perimeter1,325 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
66.1 / 100

15 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, dog_area, playground, skatepark, sports_field, tennis, …). 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%
46.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.3% effective canopy (0.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 13.8% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~282 m; 57 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (6.1/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.4%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system13.8%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)282 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon57
Tree density6.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)38.7
Sample points used268

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
67.3 / 100

169 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 161 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 12.8 buildings per 100 m of 1,325 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m169
Buildings within 50 m169
Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building17.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8
Low-rise (< 3 floors)161
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density12.76 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge5%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,325 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
48.0 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

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 (15 types · 58 records)

  • community centre
  • dog area
  • playground
  • skatepark
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • ice rink
  • other sport
  • picnic
  • pool
  • table tennis

Nearby active-edge features (29)

  • transit stop: Cedarvale Avenue0 m
  • transit stop: Gledhill Avenue0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Haldon Avenue10 m
  • transit stop: Stan Wadlow Park13 m
  • transit stop: Gledhill Avenue17 m
  • transit stop: 9 Haldon Avenue (East York Acres)25 m
  • transit stop: Cedarvale Avenue30 m
  • parking lot37 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot46 m
  • transit stop: Westlake Crescent79 m
  • parking lot96 m
  • transit stop: Westlake Crescent113 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • retail: Coin Laundry137 m
  • retail: Curves Weight Loss Centre137 m
  • retail: Silver Star Beauty Salon137 m
  • retail: Ditchon Greenhouse138 m
  • transit stop: Woodbine Avenue143 m
  • transit stop: Bracebridge Avenue148 m
  • transit stop: Cosburn Avenue151 m
  • parking lot156 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • transit stop: Plains Road165 m
  • transit stop: Cosburn Avenue166 m
  • transit stop: Woodbine Avenue172 m
  • retail180 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureStan Wadlow 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
    77th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    100th
  • Natural comfort
    49th
  • Enclosure
    66th

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

“8.5 hectares of green space featuring baseball fields, a playground & an off-leash dog area.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score69 / 100
68.8 / 100

p90 citywide · p85 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)67
Density / ha52
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
1,024
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 Stan Wadlow 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.
  • 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

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.