Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Lansing-Westgate (38)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Earl Bales Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~78th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Earl Bales Park scores 40.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:escape into nature

Area · 72.34 ha

Vitality Score

41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

40.6 / 100

Citywide

78th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Ravine / Naturalized Park

81st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in very large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=31)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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 · p29

-12.5

Connectivity78 · p98

+5.7

Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)

-5.0

Natural Comfort67 · p81

+2.5

Amenity Diversity40 · p99

-2.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park69 · p67

+1.9

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

Earl Bales Park works because its amenity diversity score (40) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (78) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Earl Bales Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (40, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Earl Bales 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 (69) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+7 vs the median in very large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Destination Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 25% canopy. Secondary read: Destination Park (72 ha, 5 amenity types, connectivity 78 / comfort 67).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop) and 19 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%

78.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 66 mapped paths/walkways and 106 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 32 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 15 estimated access points across ~4,299 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m37

Intersections within 100 m32

Paths/walkways (50 m)66

Sidewalk segments (50 m)106

Transit stops (400 m)19

Estimated entrances15

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.86

Park perimeter4,299 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, dog_area, picnic, playground, washroom). 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%

67.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 24.9% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 1.9% water surface; 108 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.5/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage24.9%

Canopy area17.99 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park1.9%

Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)

Estimated green98.1%

City-mapped trees inside polygon108

Tree density1.5 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)51.8

Sample points used800

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

69.1 / 100

160 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (32 mid-rise, 128 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.8 m (~3 floors); 3.7 buildings per 100 m of 4,299 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 32 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m160

Buildings within 50 m160

Avg edge height8.8 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building38.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)32

Low-rise (< 3 floors)128

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density3.72 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge20%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter4,299 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (5 types · 6 records)

community centre
dog area
picnic
playground
washroom

Nearby active-edge features (59)

parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Don River Blvd3 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Danby Avenue North Side7 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Bainbridge Avenue8 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at McAllister Road8 m
parking lot13 m
parking lot14 m
parking lot18 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Don River Blvd24 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Bainbridge Avenue26 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Reiner Road27 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Danby Avenue30 m
parking lot33 m
parking lot35 m
parking lot68 m
parking lot68 m
parking lot73 m
parking lot80 m
transit stop — 555 Sheppard Ave West81 m
parking lot87 m
parking lot91 m
parking lot98 m
parking lot99 m
parking lot100 m
parking lot101 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at York Downs Drive103 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Bathurst Street East Side103 m
parking lot104 m
parking lot104 m
retail — Snow White Dry Cleaners106 m
parking lot106 m
retail — Sunny Convenience107 m
restaurant — China Court110 m
parking lot112 m
retail — Quick Clean Coin Laundry113 m
parking lot115 m
retail — Mark's International Deli118 m
parking lot119 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Bathurst Street121 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Sheppard Avenue West122 m
restaurant — Summer House127 m
parking lot131 m
parking lot147 m
retail — Convenience150 m
retail — Richmond Kosher Bakery154 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at York Downs Drive156 m
parking lot160 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Bathurst Street161 m
parking lot176 m
parking lot177 m
transit stop — Bathurst Street at Sheppard Avenue West179 m
parking lot188 m
transit stop — Easton Road190 m
transit stop — Sheppard Avenue at Bathurst Street West Side191 m
parking lot196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
78th
Edge activation
29th
Connectivity
98th
Amenity diversity
99th
Natural comfort
81th
Enclosure
67th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

L'Amoreaux North ParkWaterfront Park44
West Deane ParkRavine / Naturalized Park42
Monarch ParkNeighbourhood Park45
Roding ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Tom Riley ParkWaterfront Park40

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57

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 Earl Bales 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.

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

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.