Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Trca Lands ( 66), site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront ParkType:Ravine SliverEtobicoke City Centre

Trca Lands ( 66)

Waterfront Park, near the bottom of the city overall (score 23, rank ~6th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Trca Lands ( 66), we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Trca Lands ( 66) scores 22.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. 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 forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 2.12 ha

Getting around

Paths

263 m of mapped path, 0% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 101 m away. None of the 4 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
23/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
22.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
6th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Waterfront Park
10th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in medium Waterfront Park waterfront (n=125)
Performance gap
-8
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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.

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 · p8
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p8
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity32 · p29
-3.6
Natural Comfort74 · p88
+3.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park50 · p11
+0.0

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

Trca Lands ( 66) works because its natural comfort score (74) is in the top tier (it sits inside the ravine system; water is part of the park).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 66) is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 66) sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (74) significantly outpaces connectivity (32): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -8; cohort: medium Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 15% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 29% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 15 dead/hostile uses (rail). 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%
31.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 5 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~863 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)5 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 5 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.12
Park perimeter863 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% weightmeasured 75%
74.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 29.3% estimated tree canopy; 99.1% inside the ravine system; 14.7% 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).

Canopy coverage29.3%
Canopy area0.62 ha
Inside ravine system99.1%
Water surface inside park14.7%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green85.3%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)73.9
Sample points used116

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightinferred 20%
50.0 / 100

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.

Buildings within 25 m0
Buildings within 50 m0
Avg edge height0.0 m (~0 floors)
Tallest edge building0.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)100%
Park perimeter863 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, rail, rail, rail, rail. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

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 (23)

  • rail9 m
  • rail19 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision21 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision21 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision25 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision26 m
  • rail29 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision30 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision30 m
  • rail30 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision32 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision34 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision37 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision57 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision92 m
  • parking lot101 m
  • parking lot108 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision112 m
  • rail138 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • transit stop: The West Mall at The Queensway163 m
  • transit stop: The West Mall at The Queensway186 m
  • parking lot193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTrca Lands ( 66)
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
    6th
  • Edge activation
    8th
  • Connectivity
    29th
  • Amenity diversity
    8th
  • Natural comfort
    88th
  • Enclosure
    11th

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 Trca Lands ( 66) 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.
  • 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.
  • 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

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.