Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Hendon Park — site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Newtonbrook West (36)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Hendon Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~77th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Hendon Park scores 40.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 3.58 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
40.5 / 100
Citywide
77th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
37th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=68)
Performance gap
-1
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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 · p27
-12.5
Connectivity75 · p95
+4.9
Amenity Diversity35 · p96
-3.1
Natural Comfort38 · p32
-1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p61
+1.6
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4

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

Hendon Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (75) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Hendon 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 (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (75) significantly outpaces natural comfort (38) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (77th) but typology rank is more modest (37th) — 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 (3.6 ha, framed by 5 mid-rise vs 1 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%
74.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 21 mapped paths/walkways and 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 56 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~1,041 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)21
Sidewalk segments (50 m)25
Transit stops (400 m)56
Estimated entrances10
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.86
Park perimeter1,041 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%
37.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 3.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1063 m; 16 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (4.5/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 coverage3.0%
Canopy area0.11 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,063 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon16
Tree density4.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)19.3
Sample points used202

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.0 / 100

83 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 77 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 6.4 m (~2 floors); 8.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,041 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 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m83
Buildings within 50 m83
Avg edge height6.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building74.0 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5
Low-rise (< 3 floors)77
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density7.97 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge6%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,041 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: TTC Finch Parking West 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 (4 types · 4 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (51)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot8 m
  • parking lot — TTC Finch Parking West Lot28 m
  • parking lot114 m
  • transit stop — Finch PPUDO Entrance115 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • parking lot132 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • restaurant — Pumpernickel's140 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • restaurant — Fit for Life sandwich bar141 m
  • transit stop — Finch PPUDO Pedestrian Entrance144 m
  • restaurant — Soly's Grille148 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street at Hendon Avenue153 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • rail — Yonge-University-Spadina Line166 m
  • highway — Yonge Street167 m
  • highway — Yonge Street168 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • parking lot172 m
  • restaurant — Booster Juice175 m
  • transit stop — Finch175 m
  • rail176 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons176 m
  • highway — Yonge Street176 m
  • rail — Yonge-University-Spadina Line176 m
  • restaurant — Piazza Manna179 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street at Bishop Avenue North Side181 m
  • highway — Yonge Street182 m
  • retail — print three183 m
  • transit stop184 m
  • transit stop — Finch185 m
  • highway — Yonge Street185 m
  • parking lot185 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • transit stop — Yonge Street @ Finch Avenue188 m
  • transit stop — Finch GO Terminal Entrance189 m
  • retail — Gateway Newstands190 m
  • restaurant — Yupdduk Finch193 m
  • retail — Sheila Hair Salon193 m
  • transit stop — North American Centre Entrance194 m
  • retail — Electron Computer194 m
  • transit stop — Yonge / Bishop Entrance195 m
  • transit stop195 m
  • cafe — Palgong Tea197 m
  • retail197 m
  • retail — Puff n Purr198 m
  • transit stop — Finch198 m
  • retail — TJ Convenience198 m
  • highway — Yonge Street198 m
  • restaurant — Burrito Place199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHendon Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    77th
  • Edge activation
    27th
  • Connectivity
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    96th
  • Natural comfort
    32th
  • 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.

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 Hendon 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • 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.