Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
York Mills Valley Park, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills

York Mills Valley Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~61th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of York Mills Valley Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

York Mills Valley Park scores 37.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 3.85 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennis
Facilities
Drinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

250 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (2 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 55 m away. None of the 2 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
37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
37.2 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
61st
of all 3,753 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
66th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=229)
Performance gap
+1
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Near the park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 37 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 · p7
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity68 · p88
+3.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p89
+3.3
Amenity Diversity40 · p92
-2.0
Natural Comfort48 · p52
-0.3

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

York Mills Valley Park works because its amenity diversity score (40) is in the top tier and its enclosure (83) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

York Mills Valley Park 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

York Mills Valley Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (83) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 1% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (3.8 ha, framed by 24 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 16 dead/hostile uses (highway, parking_lot, 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%
67.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 16 street intersections within 100 m; 1 subway or GO station, 5 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~936 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m13
Intersections within 100 m16
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)6 (1 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 5 bus)
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.39
Park perimeter936 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
40.1 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, bench, drinking_water, sports_field). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork near the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
48.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.3% effective canopy (1.3% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 100.0% inside the ravine system; 2.2% water surface; 29 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.5/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.3%
Canopy area0.05 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park2.2%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green97.8%
City-mapped trees inside polygon29
Tree density7.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)15.6
Sample points used227

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
83.4 / 100

53 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (24 mid-rise, 29 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.6 m (~4 floors); 5.7 buildings per 100 m of 936 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 24 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m53
Buildings within 50 m53
Avg edge height10.6 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building32.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)24
Low-rise (< 3 floors)29
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge45%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter936 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street. 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 (5 types · 13 records)

  • playground
  • tennis
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (27)

  • transit stop: Mill Street5 m
  • highway: Yonge Street9 m
  • highway: Yonge Street10 m
  • highway: Yonge Street11 m
  • highway: Yonge Street12 m
  • highway: Yonge Street14 m
  • highway: Yonge Street21 m
  • highway: Yonge Street22 m
  • highway: Yonge Street23 m
  • highway: Yonge Street26 m
  • highway: Yonge Street26 m
  • transit stop33 m
  • parking lot: Miller Tavern Parking55 m
  • highway: Yonge Street58 m
  • highway: Yonge Street59 m
  • highway: Yonge Street65 m
  • rail67 m
  • highway: Yonge Street79 m
  • highway: Yonge Street112 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • highway: Yonge Street145 m
  • highway: Yonge Street157 m
  • highway: Yonge Street162 m
  • transit stop: Yonge St at McGlashan165 m
  • transit stop: Yonge St at McGlashan171 m
  • rail189 m
  • highway: Yonge Street197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureYork Mills Valley Park
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
    61th
  • Edge activation
    7th
  • Connectivity
    88th
  • Amenity diversity
    92th
  • Natural comfort
    52th
  • Enclosure
    89th

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 York Mills Valley Park 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.