Wilderness / Conservation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Birchcliffe-Cliffside (122)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 38)

Wilderness / Conservation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~67th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: enclosure.

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

Trca Lands ( 38) scores 37.9 / 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.

Best for:hikingecological retreat

Area · 7.58 ha

Vitality Score

38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

37.9 / 100

Citywide

67th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Wilderness / Conservation Park

84th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Wilderness / Conservation Park ravine (n=11)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence medium

modest overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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 · p61

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p69

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort79 · p91

+4.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park55 · p20

+0.5

Connectivity52 · p60

+0.5

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 ( 38) works because its natural comfort score (79) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average (36% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 38) is held back by enclosure (55, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (79, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 38) is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (79) significantly outpaces connectivity (52) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its wilderness / conservation park typology (+8 vs the median in large Wilderness / Conservation Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 80%

Wilderness / Conservation Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Wilderness / Conservation Park: 99% ravine, 36% canopy, 8 ha, connectivity 52, 0 amenity types. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 36% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) 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

20% weightmeasured 85%

52.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~4,335 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m14

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)16

Transit stops (400 m)17

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.16

Park perimeter4,335 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%

79.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 35.7% estimated tree canopy; 98.8% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~42 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.3/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 coverage35.7%

Canopy area2.71 ha

Inside ravine system98.8%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)42 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon10

Tree density1.3 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)83.5

Sample points used84

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

54.9 / 100

138 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 133 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.6 m (~2 floors); 3.2 buildings per 100 m of 4,335 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m138

Buildings within 50 m138

Avg edge height5.6 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building10.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5

Low-rise (< 3 floors)133

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density3.18 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge4%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter4,335 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (14)

transit stop — Birchmount Road134 m
highway — Kingston Road140 m
highway — Kingston Road141 m
restaurant — Enrico's Pizza148 m
restaurant — Ume Fashion Sushi150 m
transit stop — Birchmount Rd at Kingston Road151 m
transit stop — Birchmount Road153 m
highway — Kingston Road155 m
highway — Kingston Road155 m
restaurant — Andrew's Place156 m
transit stop — 1859 Kingston Road157 m
highway — Kingston Road160 m
highway — Kingston Road166 m
highway — Kingston Road171 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
67th
Edge activation
61th
Connectivity
60th
Amenity diversity
69th
Natural comfort
91th
Enclosure
20th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Maxwell ParkRavine / Naturalized Park36
Maurice J. Breen ParkRavine / Naturalized Park37
Reid Manor ParkWaterfront Park39
Hollis - Kalmar ParkParkette28
City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park29

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54

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 ( 38)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.
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.
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.