Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Terry Fox Park, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Steeles (116)confidence moderate

Terry Fox Park

Other, in the top tier overall (score 51, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by SPCA663 Little B via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Terry Fox Park scores 50.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (33.4). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 6.33 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports field
Facilities
ShelterBenches
Vitality Score
51/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
50.8 / 100
Citywide
94th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
28
median in large Other (n=50)
Performance gap
+23
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.
Terry Fox 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 51 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 Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity68 · p89
+3.6
Amenity Diversity33 · p86
-3.3
Edge Activation41 · p93
-2.3
Natural Comfort37 · p28
-2.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p42
+1.1

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

Terry Fox Park works because its edge activation score (41) is in the top tier and its connectivity (68) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Terry Fox Park is held back by natural comfort (37, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (41, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (37): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 51 versus an expected 28 for similar parks (large Other) (gap +23).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (6.3 ha, 4 amenity types, frontage 9.5/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
40.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (community, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 3 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%
67.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 34 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 13 estimated access points across ~1,195 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)10
Sidewalk segments (50 m)34
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances13
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.42
Park perimeter1,195 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
33.4 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, bench, shelter). 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%
36.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1092 m; 34 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.4/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)1,092 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon34
Tree density5.4 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used211

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.5 / 100

113 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 112 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 9.5 buildings per 100 m of 1,195 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m113
Buildings within 50 m113
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building61.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)112
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density9.46 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,195 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 (4 types · 14 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • bench
  • shelter

Nearby active-edge features (24)

  • parking lot36 m
  • restaurant: Maki Momo45 m
  • community: Toronto Public Library - Steeles47 m
  • restaurant: Sam Woo BBQ48 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Nova56 m
  • retail: Canabella Spa & Reflexology57 m
  • retail: Jay One Hair Salon58 m
  • retail: Bamburgh Optical62 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • cafe: HEY JUICE68 m
  • parking lot70 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes70 m
  • restaurant: McDonald's74 m
  • retail: Foody Mart88 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • restaurant152 m
  • restaurant: Good Taste Casserole Rice159 m
  • transit stop: Warden Avenue at Bamburgh Circle North166 m
  • restaurant: Jeon Ju Hyang Restaurant181 m
  • transit stop: Warden Aenue at Bamburgh Circle North189 m
  • restaurant: Pho 88192 m
  • parking lot: Dr.Norman Bethune CI Parking192 m
  • parking lot198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTerry Fox 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
    94th
  • Edge activation
    93th
  • Connectivity
    89th
  • Amenity diversity
    86th
  • Natural comfort
    28th
  • Enclosure
    42th

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
Visitor signal score43 / 100
43.1 / 100

p51 citywide · p100 within Other

Volume (saturated)28
Density / ha24
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
196
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.92 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 Terry Fox 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.
  • 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.