Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Chestnut Hills Park, site photograph
Back to map
ParketteType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Edenbridge-Humber Valley

Chestnut Hills Park

Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 50, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: connectivity.

Photo by Sunshine_Toronto via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Chestnut Hills Park scores 50 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: amenity diversity (27.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.86 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Drinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

39 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

Typically 10 m to the nearest bench, and 15 m at the far end.

Arrival

No parking mapped in or within 200 m of this park.

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
50/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
50.0 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
93rd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=247)
Performance gap
+13
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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.
Chestnut Hills Park, 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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 50 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Amenity Diversity27 · p79
-4.5
Edge Activation33 · p89
-4.2
Natural Comfort65 · p81
+2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p66
+1.7
Connectivity49 · p57
-0.2

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

Chestnut Hills Park works because its edge activation score (33) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (65) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Chestnut Hills Park doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (33, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Chestnut Hills Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 50 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (8576 m²) with strong building frontage (14.7 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
33.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
49.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~374 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.61
Park perimeter374 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water). 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%
64.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~27.3% effective canopy (23.7% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~495 m; 39 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (39.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage23.7%
Canopy area0.20 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)495 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon39
Tree density39.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)79.1
Sample points used59

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
67.4 / 100

55 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 53 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 14.7 buildings per 100 m of 374 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m55
Buildings within 50 m55
Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)53
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density14.72 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter374 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 · 9 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (5)

  • transit stop: Fairway Road4 m
  • transit stop: Fairway Road21 m
  • transit stop: Finchley Road100 m
  • transit stop: Orrell Avenue129 m
  • transit stop: Riverbank Drive174 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureChestnut Hills 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
    93th
  • Edge activation
    89th
  • Connectivity
    57th
  • Amenity diversity
    79th
  • Natural comfort
    81th
  • Enclosure
    66th

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 score50 / 100
50.3 / 100

p68 citywide · p73 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)16
Density / ha53
Rating contribution93
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.7
out of 5
Ratings collected
98
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 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 activity9 / 100
9.2 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
15real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
30unknown

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

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Chestnut Hills Park 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.
  • 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

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.