Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Trca Lands ( 92) — site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Ravine SliversLansing-Westgate (38)confidence lowreal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 92)

Waterfront Park, middle of the pack overall (score 32, rank ~41th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.

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

Trca Lands ( 92) scores 32.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 0.17 ha

Vitality Score
32/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 40%

Data Confidence
32.3 / 100
Citywide
41st
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
56th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in pocket Waterfront Park waterfront (n=88)
Performance gap
+2
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 32 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 · p48
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p53
-10.0
Connectivity14 · p4
-7.3
Natural Comfort86 · p96
+5.4
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p62
+1.7

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

Trca Lands ( 92) works because its natural comfort score (86) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (67) is also above-average (100% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 92) is held back by connectivity (14, bottom quartile)— only 1 transit stops within walking distance.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (86, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 92) is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (86) significantly outpaces connectivity (14) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (67) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 13% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 100% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightinferred 10%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
13.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 1 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~177 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)2
Transit stops (400 m)1
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter177 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 10%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 60%
86.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 100.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 12.5% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage100.0%
Canopy area0.17 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park12.5%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green87.5%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)79.7
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.5 / 100

11 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 9 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 6.2 buildings per 100 m of 177 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m11
Buildings within 50 m11
Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)9
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density6.22 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge18%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter177 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightinferred 10%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (0)

No nearby features within 200 m of this park edge.

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTrca Lands ( 92)

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    41th
  • Edge activation
    48th
  • Connectivity
    4th
  • Amenity diversity
    53th
  • Natural comfort
    96th
  • Enclosure
    62th

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 Trca Lands ( 92)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

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.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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.