Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Finch - Humberline Sportsfields, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (ravine-leaning)West Humber-Clairville

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 45, rank ~85th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: amenity diversity.

Photo by zabed iqbal via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields scores 44.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 4.63 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. None of the 9 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.

Vitality Score
45/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
44.9 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
85th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
75th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
40
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=357)
Performance gap
+5
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Finch - Humberline Sportsfields, aerial top-down view
Top-down view. City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Explain this score

Where did the 45 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
Amenity Diversity12 · p56
-7.6
Edge Activation23 · p79
-6.7
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Connectivity63 · p80
+2.6
Natural Comfort66 · p82
+2.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p65
+1.6

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

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields works because its natural comfort score (66) is above average and its connectivity (63) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (66, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields 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 (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 23): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 4.6 ha, framed by 4 mid-rise vs 1 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
23.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 15 active uses (transit_stop, retail, cafe) and 6 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
62.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 24 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 14 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~942 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)24
Transit stops (400 m)14 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 14 bus)
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.64
Park perimeter942 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (sports_field). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
66.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 18.8% estimated tree canopy; 25.8% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~332 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage18.8%
Canopy area0.87 ha
Inside ravine system25.8%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)332 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)90.2
Sample points used260

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.0 / 100

85 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 80 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 6.3 m (~2 floors); 9.0 buildings per 100 m of 942 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m85
Buildings within 50 m85
Avg edge height6.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building49.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)4
Low-rise (< 3 floors)80
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density9.03 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge5%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter942 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (1 types · 2 records)

  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (26)

  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Viewcrest Circle4 m
  • transit stop: Finch Ave e/of Humberline Dr7 m
  • transit stop: Finch Ave e/of Humberline Dr8 m
  • transit stop: Viewcrest Circle18 m
  • transit stop: Humberline Dr at Finch Ave West South Side27 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons31 m
  • transit stop31 m
  • transit stop: Humberline Dr at Finch Ave West34 m
  • retail: On the Run34 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • transit stop: Humberline Drive41 m
  • parking lot53 m
  • transit stop: Woodlot Crescent55 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue At Humberline Drive66 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue At Humberline Drive71 m
  • transit stop: Woodlot Crescent (West)81 m
  • parking lot83 m
  • transit stop: Humberwood Boulevard at Honeyview Place93 m
  • transit stop: Humberline Dr at Finch Ave West123 m
  • retail: Dreamland Home Furnishing124 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFinch - Humberline Sportsfields
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
    85th
  • Edge activation
    79th
  • Connectivity
    80th
  • Amenity diversity
    56th
  • Natural comfort
    82th
  • Enclosure
    65th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score35 / 100
34.8 / 100

p28 citywide · p23 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)15
Density / ha16
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
88
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.96 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Finch - Humberline Sportsfields 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.

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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.