Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Fred Young Drive Green — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Ravine SliversDownsview-Roding-CFB (26)confidence lowreal Toronto data

Fred Young Drive Green

Ravine / Naturalized Park, below average overall (score 27, rank ~17th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.

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

Fred Young Drive Green scores 26.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 for:escape into nature

Area · 0.31 ha

Vitality Score
27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 32%

Data Confidence
26.8 / 100
Citywide
17th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
18th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=200)
Performance gap
-6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 27 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 · p51
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p56
-10.0
Connectivity7 · p1
-8.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p62
+1.7
Natural Comfort59 · p73
+1.3

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

Fred Young Drive Green works because its natural comfort score (59) is above average and its enclosure (67) is also above-average (it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Fred Young Drive Green is held back by connectivity (7, bottom quartile)— only 0 transit stops within walking distance.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low connectivity (7, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Fred Young Drive Green is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (59) significantly outpaces connectivity (7) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -6; cohort: small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 9% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightinferred 10%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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% weightpartial 45%
7.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 3 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 0 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~239 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: pedestrian_network.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)3
Transit stops (400 m)0
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter239 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 10%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 60%
58.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 9.1% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~51 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage9.1%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)51 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)41.4
Sample points used22

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.5 / 100

24 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 24 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.0 m (~3 floors); 10.1 buildings per 100 m of 239 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m24
Buildings within 50 m24
Avg edge height8.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building8.0 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)24
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density10.05 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter239 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightinferred 10%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (0)

No nearby features within 200 m of this park edge.

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFred Young Drive Green

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    17th
  • Edge activation
    51th
  • Connectivity
    1th
  • Amenity diversity
    56th
  • Natural comfort
    73th
  • Enclosure
    62th

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 Fred Young Drive Greenmatters. 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

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.
  • Diversify what people can do in the park — playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden — even small additions raise this score.

Data sources

  • City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
  • 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.