City Wide Open Space
Waterfront Park, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~31th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
City Wide Open Space scores 30.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. 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.
Area · 0.30 ha
Getting around
61 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
Too little path mapped to check for steps.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Nearest parking 104 m away. None of the 7 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 51%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Explain this score
Where did the 30 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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 edge activation score (14) is above average and its natural comfort (55) is also above-average.
What limits this park
City Wide Open Space is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
City Wide Open Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- Natural comfort (55) significantly outpaces connectivity (17): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
Typology classification
Classified as Waterfront Park: 33% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 5% canopy).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 4 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~230 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 4.8% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 33.3% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints
Equity Context
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 (10)
- transit stop: Opposite 4600 Bathurst Street80 m
- parking lot104 m
- parking lot106 m
- transit stop: 4600 Bathurst Street109 m
- parking lot116 m
- parking lot122 m
- parking lot139 m
- community: Prosserman JCC145 m
- parking lot146 m
- parking lot194 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality31th
- Edge activation71th
- Connectivity13th
- Amenity diversity5th
- Natural comfort71th
- Enclosure11th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Longmeadow ParkOther29
- Alan Bradley ParkOther28
- Ada MacKenzie ParkOther29
- William T. Foster WoodsOther28
- Private Thomas Millar Armstrong ParkOther27
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- High ParkWaterfront Park51
- Trinity Bellwoods ParkNeighbourhood Park66
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.
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. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.