Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Tam O'Shanter-Sullivan (118)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Wishing Well Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~53th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Wishing Well Park scores 34.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (42). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 6.12 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

34.8 / 100

Citywide

53rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Athletic / Recreation Park

5th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)

Performance gap

-7

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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

Natural Comfort36 · p27

-2.1

Connectivity56 · p66

+1.1

Border Vacuum Risk42 (risk)

+0.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park56 · p21

+0.6

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

Wishing Well Park works because its amenity diversity score (35) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (56) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Wishing Well Park is held back by enclosure (56, bottom quartile)— no mid-rise frontage to provide eyes on the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (42).

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Wishing Well Park is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -7; cohort: Athletic / Recreation Park).
Citywide rank is high (53rd) but typology rank is more modest (5th) — 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 (6.1 ha, framed by 0 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 4 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%

55.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 14 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 4 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~1,084 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8

Intersections within 100 m12

Paths/walkways (50 m)4

Sidewalk segments (50 m)14

Transit stops (400 m)4

Estimated entrances4

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.74

Park perimeter1,084 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% weightpartial 45%

36.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.9% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~486 m; 17 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.8/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)486 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon17

Tree density2.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used232

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

55.7 / 100

76 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 76 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.1 m (~1 floors); 7.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,084 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m76

Buildings within 50 m76

Avg edge height4.1 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building7.3 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)76

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.01 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,084 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

42.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Highway 401 Collector. 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 (8)

parking lot0 m
highway — Highway 401 Collector43 m
highway — Highway 401 Collector82 m
highway — Highway 401 Collector90 m
highway — Highway 401 Express156 m
parking lot177 m
parking lot192 m
restaurant — Konak Turkish Cuisine193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
53th
Edge activation
25th
Connectivity
66th
Amenity diversity
96th
Natural comfort
27th
Enclosure
21th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Maryvale ParkAthletic / Recreation Park40
Corvette ParkNeighbourhood Park38
Lanyard ParkAthletic / Recreation Park42
Agincourt ParkNeighbourhood Park30
Firgrove ParkAthletic / Recreation Park40

Most opposite parks

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

Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60
Manor Community GreenUrban Plaza57
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54

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 Wishing Well 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.
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.