Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Woburn Avenue Playground, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Lawrence Park North (105)confidence moderate

Woburn Avenue Playground

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 42, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Woburn Avenue Playground scores 41.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.25 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Washroom
Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 70%

Data Confidence
41.9 / 100
Citywide
78th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
64th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
Performance gap
+0
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).

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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 · p50
-12.5
Amenity Diversity21 · p74
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park85 · p91
+3.5
Connectivity64 · p83
+2.8
Natural Comfort42 · p41
-1.1

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

Woburn Avenue Playground works because its enclosure score (85) is in the top tier and its connectivity (64) is also top quartile (11 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Woburn Avenue Playground doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (85, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Woburn Avenue Playground 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 (85) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2509 m², paved (5% canopy), 42.3 buildings/100 m

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%
64.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 24 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~208 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)24
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.85
Park perimeter208 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, washroom). 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% weightpartial 60%
42.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 5.3% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~736 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage5.3%
Canopy area0.01 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)736 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)29.7
Sample points used19

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
84.9 / 100

88 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (11 mid-rise, 77 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.4 m (~2 floors); 42.3 buildings per 100 m of 208 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 11 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m88
Buildings within 50 m88
Avg edge height7.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building11.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)11
Low-rise (< 3 floors)77
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density42.31 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge13%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter208 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 (2 types · 3 records)

  • playground
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (12)

  • parking lot129 m
  • transit stop: Bedford Entrance186 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • retail: Bloom Plus192 m
  • restaurant: Chophop + Pantry193 m
  • retail: Brading Specialty Shades195 m
  • transit stop: Yonge St at Ranleigh Ave195 m
  • retail: Danielz Bread195 m
  • retail: Lawrence Park Cleaners196 m
  • parking lot198 m
  • retail: Snow 1 Hour Cleaners198 m
  • retail199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureWoburn Avenue Playground
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
    79th
  • Edge activation
    50th
  • Connectivity
    83th
  • Amenity diversity
    74th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    91th

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 Woburn Avenue Playgroundmatters. 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.

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.