Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
David Crombie Park, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)St Lawrence-East Bayfront-The Islands

David Crombie Park

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 46, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by booledozer, CC0 via Wikimedia Commons

Data updated

David Crombie Park scores 46.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.14 ha

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 74 m away. None of the 3 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
46/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
46.2 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
88th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
78th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
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.
David Crombie 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.

Explain this score

Where did the 46 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
Amenity Diversity0 · p46
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort25 · p9
-3.8
Connectivity64 · p83
+2.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park74 · p77
+2.4
Edge Activation49 · p96
-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

David Crombie Park works because its edge activation score (49) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (64) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

David Crombie Park is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (49, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (64) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+8 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1363 m², paved (0% canopy), 6.1 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
49.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) 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%
64.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 12 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 3 streetcar or LRT stops, 14 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~197 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m12
Paths/walkways (50 m)12
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)17 (0 subway/GO, 3 streetcar/LRT, 14 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.53
Park perimeter197 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
25.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~505 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)505 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used10

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
73.7 / 100

12 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 26.1 m (~9 floors); 6.1 buildings per 100 m of 197 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m12
Buildings within 50 m12
Avg edge height26.1 m (~9 floors)
Tallest edge building53.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)3
Frontage density6.11 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge58%
Tower share of edge25%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter197 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (54)

  • transit stop: Lower Sherbourne Street48 m
  • transit stop: Lower Sherbourne Street63 m
  • restaurant: Bellissimo72 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • transit stop: The Esplanade76 m
  • transit stop: Frederick Street77 m
  • retail: Shannon’s Place78 m
  • retail: J.S. Hair Salon83 m
  • retail: Crown Cleaners88 m
  • transit stop: Princess Street102 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • retail: market cleaners104 m
  • transit stop: George Street South115 m
  • transit stop118 m
  • transit stop: The Esplanade127 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor131 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor132 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor133 m
  • retail: St. Lawrence Pro Hardware134 m
  • transit stop: Princess Street136 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor137 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor139 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor141 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor143 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor145 m
  • restaurant: Shawarma House149 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor149 m
  • retail: Cheers Fine Foods149 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor151 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor153 m
  • school: St. Michael Catholic School153 m
  • restaurant: Miyaki Sushi154 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Nova155 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor156 m
  • retail: Gingko Floral Design159 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor160 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor160 m
  • restaurant: Cluck Clucks Chicken160 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor163 m
  • restaurant: Subway164 m
  • restaurant: Farm’r168 m
  • retail: Royal Foodland175 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor178 m
  • community: Toronto Public Library - St. Lawrence179 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor181 m
  • transit stop: Front Street East184 m
  • transit stop: Lower Jarvis Street185 m
  • school: Downtown Alternative School190 m
  • retail: Rabba195 m
  • restaurant: On the Rocks195 m
  • rail: Union Station Rail Corridor199 m
  • community: St. Lawrence Community Recreation Centre200 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDavid Crombie 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
    96th
  • Connectivity
    83th
  • Amenity diversity
    46th
  • Natural comfort
    9th
  • Enclosure
    77th

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 David Crombie 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.
  • 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: 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.