Trca Lands ( 73)
Waterfront Park, below average overall (score 30, rank ~30th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: edge activation.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Trca Lands ( 73), we would like to use it.
Submit a photoAerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
Trca Lands ( 73) scores 30 / 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.
Area · 1.25 ha
Getting around
88 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
Too little path mapped to check for steps.
No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.
Nearest parking 155 m away. None of the 3 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 53%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Explain this score
Where did the 30 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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 ( 73) works because its natural comfort score (79) is in the top tier (36% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).
What limits this park
Trca Lands ( 73) is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
Trca Lands ( 73) 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 (16): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
Typology classification
Classified as Waterfront Park: 30% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (71% ravine overlap, 36% canopy).
Edge Activation
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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.
Connectivity
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 6 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~722 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 35.7% estimated tree canopy; 71.4% inside the ravine system; 29.8% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
Source: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.
Equity Context
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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (5)
- parking lot155 m
- transit stop: The West Mall at The Queensway162 m
- parking lot181 m
- parking lot184 m
- transit stop: The West Mall at The Queensway189 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality30th
- Edge activation4th
- Connectivity13th
- Amenity diversity6th
- Natural comfort92th
- Enclosure11th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- City Wide Open SpaceRavine / Naturalized Park31
- Rouge ParkCorridor / Linear Park31
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park30
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park23
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park29
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza64
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 ( 73) 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.
- Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
- 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: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.