Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Broadlands Park — site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Parkwoods-Donalda (45)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Broadlands Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~81th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Diana Mancuso via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Broadlands Park scores 41.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 4.74 ha

Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
41.5 / 100
Citywide
81st
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
48th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=68)
Performance gap
-0
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Broadlands Park — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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 · p25
-12.5
Amenity Diversity35 · p96
-3.1
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Connectivity61 · p75
+2.1
Natural Comfort58 · p72
+1.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p43
+1.2

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

Broadlands Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (61) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Broadlands Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Broadlands 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 (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (81st) but typology rank is more modest (48th) — the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, tennis). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (4.7 ha, framed by 3 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 3 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%
60.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 26 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~1,493 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m11
Paths/walkways (50 m)10
Sidewalk segments (50 m)26
Transit stops (400 m)8
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.54
Park perimeter1,493 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, sports_field, tennis, 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%
58.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 18.7% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~729 m; 55 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.6/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage18.7%
Canopy area0.89 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)729 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon55
Tree density11.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)69.5
Sample points used155

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.6 / 100

166 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 163 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.7 m (~2 floors); 11.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,493 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m166
Buildings within 50 m166
Avg edge height4.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.8 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)163
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density11.12 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge2%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,493 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 (4 types · 4 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (19)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot7 m
  • parking lot62 m
  • retail — Donwood Men's Hairstylist114 m
  • retail — Donwood Variety115 m
  • retail — Corby's Drycleaner115 m
  • retail — Laptop Depot115 m
  • retail — Antonio's Hair Stylists116 m
  • retail — Sugar & Season Bakehouse116 m
  • retail — Bagel King Bakery & Deli117 m
  • retail — Underhill Minimart118 m
  • restaurant — Allwyn’s Bakery119 m
  • retail — Valu-mart120 m
  • restaurant — High Street Fish & Chips125 m
  • retail — Ergonation Inc149 m
  • cafe — Chatter155 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • retail — PRINCESS Nails & Spa162 m
  • transit stop189 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureBroadlands Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    81th
  • Edge activation
    25th
  • Connectivity
    75th
  • Amenity diversity
    96th
  • Natural comfort
    72th
  • Enclosure
    43th

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
46/ 100
45.5 / 100

p57 citywide · p44 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)27
Density / ha28
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
185
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.99 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
9.2 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
15real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
29unknown

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

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Broadlands 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

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.