Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (ravine-leaning)Rockcliffe-Smythe (111)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarlett Woods Golf Course

Ravine / Naturalized Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 16, rank ~1th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Scarlett Woods Golf Course scores 15.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:escape into nature

Area · 0.20 ha

Vitality Score

16/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 55%

Data Confidence

15.8 / 100

Citywide

1st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Ravine / Naturalized Park

0th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=252)

Performance gap

-17

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 16 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 · p12

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p17

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park24 · p2

-2.6

Natural Comfort35 · p22

-2.2

Connectivity41 · p36

-1.8

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

Scarlett Woods Golf Course doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

Scarlett Woods Golf Course is held back by enclosure (24, bottom quartile)— no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (24, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Scarlett Woods Golf Course is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

Strong underperformer relative to its cohort — raw 16 vs an expected 33 (gap -17).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 0% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop) and 7 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%

41.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~280 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)4

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)12

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter280 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%

0.0 / 100

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

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%

35.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~137 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)137 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used14

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%

23.5 / 100

1 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 3.8 m (~1 floors); 0.4 buildings per 100 m of 280 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m1

Buildings within 50 m1

Avg edge height3.8 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building3.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)1

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density0.36 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)88%

Park perimeter280 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, Eglinton Avenue West, parking_lot, Eglinton Avenue West. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (15)

transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West1 m
transit stop — Jane Street5 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West21 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West27 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West35 m
parking lot36 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West43 m
transit stop — Jane Street West Side44 m
transit stop — Jane Street72 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West78 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West80 m
transit stop — Eglinton Avenue West at Jane Street East Side81 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West81 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West139 m
highway — Eglinton Avenue West176 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
1th
Edge activation
12th
Connectivity
36th
Amenity diversity
17th
Natural comfort
22th
Enclosure
2th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Downsview ParkOther16
City Wide Open SpaceOther26
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceOther25
City Wide Open SpaceWaterfront Park15
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park14

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Sir Winston Churchill ParkRavine / Naturalized Park69

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 Scarlett Woods Golf Coursematters. 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.

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.
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.
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

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.