Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Craigleigh Gardens, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Rosedale-Moore Park

Craigleigh Gardens

Ravine / Naturalized Park, in the top tier overall (score 46, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Michael M via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Craigleigh Gardens scores 46.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (6.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 3.44 ha

What's here

Recreation
Off-leash dog area
Facilities
Drinking waterPicnic areaBenches

Getting around

Paths

228 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Typically 14 m to the nearest bench, and 58 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 138 m away. None of the 1 nearby lot records whether it has accessible spaces.

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
46/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
46.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
88th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
92nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=229)
Performance gap
+10
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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.
Craigleigh Gardens, 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.

Explain this score

Where did the 46 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 Activation6 · p65
-10.9
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Amenity Diversity33 · p84
-3.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park73 · p76
+2.3
Connectivity61 · p78
+2.2
Natural Comfort56 · p72
+0.9

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

Craigleigh Gardens works because its amenity diversity score (33) is above average and its connectivity (61) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Craigleigh Gardens 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 amenity diversity (33, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Craigleigh Gardens 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 (73) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+10 vs the median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 75% ravine overlap, 0% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (3.4 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
6.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 1 dead/hostile uses (highway). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.

Source: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
61.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~1,009 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)7 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.69
Park perimeter1,009 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
33.4 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, bench, drinking_water, picnic). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
56.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.7% effective canopy (0.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 74.6% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~95 m; 28 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.2/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 coverage0.4%
Canopy area0.02 ha
Inside ravine system74.6%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)95 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon28
Tree density8.2 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)53.7
Sample points used224

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
73.3 / 100

51 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 36 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.3 m (~3 floors); 5.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,009 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m51
Buildings within 50 m51
Avg edge height8.3 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building19.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)36
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.05 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge29%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,009 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

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

Source: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (4 types · 18 records)

  • dog area
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (13)

  • highway: Bayview-Bloor Ramp78 m
  • transit stop: South Dr at Glen Rd92 m
  • highway: Bayview-Bloor Ramp111 m
  • transit stop: Glen Rd at South Dr123 m
  • highway: Bayview-Bloor Ramp133 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • transit stop149 m
  • transit stop: Elm Avenue157 m
  • transit stop: South Dr at Glen Rd157 m
  • highway: Bayview-Bloor Ramp159 m
  • transit stop: May Street178 m
  • highway: Bayview-Bloor Ramp179 m
  • highway: Bayview-Bloor Ramp199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureCraigleigh Gardens
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
    88th
  • Edge activation
    65th
  • Connectivity
    78th
  • Amenity diversity
    84th
  • Natural comfort
    72th
  • Enclosure
    76th

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

“Stately, 3.4-hectare green space with mature trees, benches & a popular off-leash dog area.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score60 / 100
60.2 / 100

p81 citywide · p80 within Ravine / Naturalized Park

Volume (saturated)43
Density / ha53
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
383
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: 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 Craigleigh Gardens 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.
  • 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: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.