Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
City Wide Open Space, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)South Riverdale

City Wide Open Space

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 50, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

No photograph yet. If you have one of City Wide Open Space, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

City Wide Open Space scores 49.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: amenity diversity 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 forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 7.90 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundOff-leash dog areaGarden
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBBQBenchesPublic art

Getting around

Paths

2.5 km of mapped path, 56% paved.

2 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (7 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 63 m away. None of the 2 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
50/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
49.8 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
93rd
of all 3,753 parks
Among Waterfront Park
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=62)
Performance gap
+11
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.

Public art in this park

Near the park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 50 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 · p88
-4.5
Amenity Diversity58 · p99
+1.7
Natural Comfort42 · p39
-1.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park39 · p8
-1.1
Connectivity50 · p58
-0.1

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

City Wide Open Space works because its amenity diversity score (58) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (32) is also top quartile (9 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

City Wide Open Space is held back by enclosure (39, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (58, top decile).

Jacobs reading

City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+11 vs the median in large Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 25% water surface inside park

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) 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%
49.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,407 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)7 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.50
Park perimeter1,407 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
58.3 / 100

9 distinct amenity types in the park (art, bbq, bench, dog_area, drinking_water, garden, …). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 3 public artworks in the park and 1 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%
41.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 25.0% water surface; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.1/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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 park25.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green75.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon1
Tree density0.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)81.1
Sample points used176

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
39.4 / 100

16 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 13 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 1.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,407 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m16
Buildings within 50 m16
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building12.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)13
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.14 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge19%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)62%
Park perimeter1,407 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 (9 types · 39 records)

  • art
  • bbq
  • bench
  • dog area
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • picnic
  • playground
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (10)

  • transit stop: Commissioners St at Munition St9 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners St at Munition St24 m
  • transit stop52 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • transit stop: Commisioners St75 m
  • transit stop134 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • transit stop144 m
  • transit stop: Ookwemin Minising158 m
  • transit stop179 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCity Wide Open Space
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
    93th
  • Edge activation
    88th
  • Connectivity
    58th
  • Amenity diversity
    99th
  • Natural comfort
    39th
  • Enclosure
    8th

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 City Wide Open Space 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.
  • 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.
  • Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

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.