Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Glendale Memorial Gardens — site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)West Humber-Clairville (1)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Glendale Memorial Gardens

Waterfront Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 23, rank ~7th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Glendale Memorial Gardens scores 23 / 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:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 27.28 ha

Vitality Score
23/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
23.0 / 100
Citywide
7th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
10th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
35
median in very large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=44)
Performance gap
-12
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 23 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 · p11
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p16
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity68 · p88
+3.6
Natural Comfort38 · p32
-1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park37 · p7
-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

Glendale Memorial Gardens works because its connectivity score (68) is in the top tier (16 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 13 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Glendale Memorial Gardens is held back by enclosure (37, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (37, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Glendale Memorial Gardens is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (38) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -12; cohort: very large Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 55%
Waterfront Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: nearest waterbody within ~0 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 20 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%
68.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 45 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~2,170 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m16
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)45
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.74
Park perimeter2,170 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% weightmeasured 75%
37.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 3.0% estimated tree canopy; 4.9% inside the ravine system; 0.3% water surface; 43 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.6/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage3.0%
Canopy area0.81 ha
Inside ravine system4.9%
Water surface inside park0.3%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green99.7%
City-mapped trees inside polygon43
Tree density1.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)25.3
Sample points used304

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
36.8 / 100

22 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 20 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 1.0 buildings per 100 m of 2,170 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 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m22
Buildings within 50 m22
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building14.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)20
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.01 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge9%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)66%
Park perimeter2,170 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: Highway 27, Highway 27, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27, Highway 27. 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 (41)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — 225 Carrier Drive6 m
  • transit stop — 209 Carrier Drive6 m
  • transit stop — Albion Rd at Carrie Dr8 m
  • highway — Highway 2715 m
  • highway — Highway 2718 m
  • transit stop — 225 Carrier Drive18 m
  • highway — Highway 2719 m
  • highway — Highway 2719 m
  • transit stop — Albion Road19 m
  • transit stop — 209 Carrier Drive19 m
  • highway — Highway 2720 m
  • highway — Highway 2721 m
  • transit stop — 263 Carrier Drive21 m
  • highway — Highway 2725 m
  • highway — Highway 2726 m
  • highway — Highway 2730 m
  • highway — Highway 2730 m
  • highway — Highway 2733 m
  • parking lot37 m
  • transit stop — Albion Rd at Carrie Dr47 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • transit stop — Albion Road53 m
  • highway — Highway 2761 m
  • highway — Highway 2769 m
  • highway — Highway 2772 m
  • transit stop — Albion Rd at Highway 2774 m
  • highway — Highway 2781 m
  • highway — Highway 2789 m
  • retail — Storage Centre92 m
  • retail — Shell95 m
  • highway — Highway 27105 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • highway — Highway 27155 m
  • restaurant — Focaccia's161 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • retail — Petro-Canada170 m
  • transit stop — Highway 27171 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • restaurant — Carribean Lyme195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGlendale Memorial Gardens

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    7th
  • Edge activation
    11th
  • Connectivity
    88th
  • Amenity diversity
    16th
  • Natural comfort
    32th
  • Enclosure
    7th

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 Glendale Memorial Gardensmatters. 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.
  • 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.