Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Ashtonbee Reservoir Park, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Wexford/Maryvale (119)confidence moderate

Ashtonbee Reservoir Park

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~53th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Ashtonbee Reservoir Park scores 35 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 9.20 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field
Facilities
WashroomShelterBenches
Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
35.0 / 100
Citywide
53rd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
85th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
28
median in large Other (n=50)
Performance gap
+7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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).

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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 · p52
-12.5
Amenity Diversity33 · p87
-3.3
Natural Comfort34 · p19
-2.4
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Connectivity55 · p68
+1.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park58 · p33
+0.8

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

Ashtonbee Reservoir Park works because its amenity diversity score (33) is in the top tier and its connectivity (55) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Ashtonbee Reservoir Park is held back by natural comfort (34, bottom quartile): only 1% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (33, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Ashtonbee Reservoir Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its other typology (+7 vs the median in large Other).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (53rd), it ranks highly among similar others (85th): strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (9.2 ha, 4 amenity types, frontage 1.3/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 9 dead/hostile uses (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%
54.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 24 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,379 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)24
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.36
Park perimeter1,379 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
33.4 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (sports_field, washroom, bench, shelter). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
34.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.5% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~540 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.5%
Canopy area0.05 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)540 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)4.8
Sample points used186

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
58.3 / 100

18 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 8 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 9.1 m (~3 floors); 1.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,379 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); 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 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m18
Buildings within 50 m18
Avg edge height9.1 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building22.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)8
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.31 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge56%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)56%
Park perimeter1,379 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. 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: 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 (4 types · 9 records)

  • sports field
  • washroom
  • bench
  • shelter

Nearby active-edge features (36)

  • transit stop: Pharmacy Ave at Rannock St4 m
  • transit stop: Pharmacy Ave at Rannock St21 m
  • parking lot31 m
  • parking lot32 m
  • parking lot33 m
  • parking lot58 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • retail: David's Bridal74 m
  • retail: Soft Moc74 m
  • retail: Carter's OshKosh76 m
  • retail: Gap Factory Store77 m
  • retail: Winners78 m
  • retail: LCBO80 m
  • parking lot: Mr. Lube + Tire parking81 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • transit stop: Pharmacy Ave at Craigton Dr148 m
  • restaurant: McDonald's154 m
  • retail155 m
  • parking lot156 m
  • transit stop: Craigton Dr at Rannock St167 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • transit stop: Pharmacy Ave at Biscayne Blvd172 m
  • retail: Reitmans174 m
  • transit stop: Craigton Dr at Pharmacy Ave177 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • transit stop: Pharmacy Ave at Singleton Rd182 m
  • retail: The Brick184 m
  • retail: The Children's Place186 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • transit stop: Craigton Drive191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureAshtonbee Reservoir 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
    53th
  • Edge activation
    52th
  • Connectivity
    68th
  • Amenity diversity
    87th
  • Natural comfort
    19th
  • Enclosure
    33th

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 Ashtonbee Reservoir Parkmatters. 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: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.