Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Finch - Humberline Sportsfields — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)West Humber-Clairville (1)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 43, rank ~84th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields scores 42.7 / 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:daily urban life

Area · 4.63 ha

Vitality Score
43/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
42.7 / 100
Citywide
84th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
79th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+5
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

Finch - Humberline Sportsfields — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 43 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 Diversity0 · p49
-10.0
Edge Activation23 · p79
-6.7
Connectivity64 · p80
+2.7
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Natural Comfort66 · p80
+2.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p61
+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 connectivity score (64) is above average and its natural comfort (66) is also top quartile (28 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (64, 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.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+5 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).

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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
63.6 / 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; 28 transit 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)28
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.64
Park perimeter942 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%
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, 0–100)90.2
Sample points used260

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

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 2–3 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 (3–7 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)

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" — 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

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

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    84th
  • Edge activation
    79th
  • Connectivity
    80th
  • Amenity diversity
    49th
  • Natural comfort
    80th
  • Enclosure
    61th

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 score
35/ 100
34.8 / 100

p29 citywide · p32 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

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 50%
Overall activity
9/ 100
8.5 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
13real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
26unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Finch - Humberline Sportsfieldsmatters. 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

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.