Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Mimico (includes Humber Bay Shores) (17)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Amos Waites Park

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~53th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Amos Waites Park scores 34.6 / 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 for:daily urban life

Area · 1.47 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

34.6 / 100

Citywide

53rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

38th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-3

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

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 · p43

-12.5

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Amenity Diversity28 · p95

-4.3

Connectivity68 · p88

+3.6

Enclosure / Eyes on Park75 · p76

+2.5

Natural Comfort53 · p65

+0.4

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

Amos Waites Park works because its amenity diversity score (28) is in the top tier and its connectivity (68) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Amos Waites Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 100.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Amos Waites 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 (75) 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 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.5 ha, framed by 10 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 36 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 22 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%

68.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 29 mapped paths/walkways and 21 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~672 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m7

Paths/walkways (50 m)29

Sidewalk segments (50 m)21

Transit stops (400 m)12

Estimated entrances5

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.74

Park perimeter672 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, 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% weightmeasured 75%

52.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~17.1% effective canopy (1.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~117 m; 36 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (24.5/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.0%

Canopy area0.01 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)117 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon36

Tree density24.5 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)8.1

Sample points used100

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

74.5 / 100

51 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 41 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.8 m (~3 floors); 7.6 buildings per 100 m of 672 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m51

Buildings within 50 m51

Avg edge height7.8 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building25.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)10

Low-rise (< 3 floors)41

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.59 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge20%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter672 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, Lake Shore Boulevard West. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 (3 types · 3 records)

playground
tennis
washroom

Nearby active-edge features (80)

parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
restaurant — Nimman1 m
restaurant — Mangoes2 m
retail6 m
retail — Jac's Milk6 m
parking lot6 m
parking lot7 m
highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West10 m
parking lot12 m
restaurant — Maurya East Indian Roti Cuisine12 m
transit stop — Mimico Avenue12 m
retail — Coin Laundry13 m
retail — BooBoo Pet Grooming Serices13 m
retail — Gud Daae gluten free sandwiches13 m
retail — Freedom Mobile13 m
transit stop — Mimico Avenue15 m
retail — Broke Billonares16 m
parking lot22 m
transit stop — Mimico Avenue23 m
parking lot24 m
retail — International Hair Salon24 m
retail — Money Shop28 m
restaurant — Krispy Kreme31 m
retail — Chatr31 m
parking lot35 m
restaurant — Mixi Culinary Project36 m
parking lot38 m
retail — XL Laundromat & Dry Cleaners41 m
restaurant — Canadiana42 m
retail — Tammy's Spaw45 m
retail — Lakeview Cannabis46 m
parking lot48 m
retail — Q-Market49 m
restaurant — New Flower Drum50 m
parking lot50 m
parking lot51 m
retail53 m
restaurant — Kothur58 m
restaurant — Pebbles Restaurant59 m
transit stop — Mimico Ave at Lake Shore Blvd West59 m
parking lot59 m
parking lot61 m
retail — Glow Body Tans & Spa63 m
restaurant — Golden Stove65 m
retail67 m
restaurant — Alppalachia71 m
parking lot73 m
parking lot73 m
parking lot75 m
parking lot76 m
retail — A-1 Discount Variety & Dollar77 m
parking lot93 m
retail — Lost Beaches Travel Co.93 m
transit stop — Superior Avenue96 m
retail — Home Hardware97 m
parking lot97 m
parking lot98 m
parking lot101 m
parking lot107 m
parking lot110 m
parking lot111 m
parking lot116 m
restaurant — Pearl Sushi121 m
cafe — Mimico Coffee & Bagel125 m
transit stop — Superior Avenue128 m
parking lot130 m
parking lot132 m
restaurant — New West City Resturant & Bar134 m
retail — Specs and Spines136 m
parking lot139 m
retail — A-1 Bargain & Dollar Store139 m
highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West140 m
retail — Elevate Barbershop143 m
parking lot157 m
parking lot161 m
parking lot164 m
retail165 m
retail — Home New Port170 m
parking lot176 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
53th
Edge activation
43th
Connectivity
88th
Amenity diversity
95th
Natural comfort
65th
Enclosure
76th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Tall Pines ParkAthletic / Recreation Park42
Orchard ParkNeighbourhood Park45
Lambton ParkRavine / Naturalized Park32
Kempton Howard ParkAthletic / Recreation Park43
Graydon Hall ParkCorridor / Linear Park37

Most opposite parks

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

Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51
Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25

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 Amos Waites 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.

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.
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

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.