Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Warner Park, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Victoria Village (43)confidence moderate

Warner Park

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 39, rank ~69th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Warner Park scores 39.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (54). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.74 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports field
Facilities
Picnic areaBenches
Vitality Score
39/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
39.2 / 100
Citywide
69th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
75th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=247)
Performance gap
+2
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 39 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 · p51
-12.5
Amenity Diversity35 · p89
-3.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p79
+2.6
Connectivity61 · p79
+2.2
Border Vacuum Risk54 (risk)
-0.4
Natural Comfort52 · p68
+0.3

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

Warner Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is in the top tier and its enclosure (76) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Warner Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 54.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (35, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Warner 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (54): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (7438 m²) with strong building frontage (12.1 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 7 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%
61.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~405 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.73
Park perimeter405 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, picnic, sports_field). 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 45%
52.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~18.2% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~264 m; 26 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (26.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)264 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon26
Tree density26.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used51

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
76.1 / 100

49 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 40 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.7 m (~2 floors); 12.1 buildings per 100 m of 405 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 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m49
Buildings within 50 m49
Avg edge height6.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building26.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)40
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density12.11 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge18%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter405 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
54.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Eglinton Avenue East, 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: 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 (4 types · 5 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • picnic
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (25)

  • transit stop: Jonesville Crescent East Side3 m
  • parking lot10 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East25 m
  • transit stop: Jonesville Crescent36 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East54 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East84 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton111 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton111 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • transit stop126 m
  • parking lot: Jonesville Allotment Parking157 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • transit stop: Victoria Park Avenue168 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton172 m
  • transit stop: Eglinton Ave E174 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East191 m
  • retail: Tokeonline.at195 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East196 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East197 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureWarner Park
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
    69th
  • Edge activation
    51th
  • Connectivity
    79th
  • Amenity diversity
    89th
  • Natural comfort
    68th
  • Enclosure
    79th

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 Warner 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.

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.
  • 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

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.