Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Isabella Valancy Crawford Park — site photograph
Back to map
Tower-Community Green Spacecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (ravine-leaning)Waterfront Communities-The Island (77)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Isabella Valancy Crawford Park

Tower-Community Green Space, near the bottom of the city overall (score 21, rank ~4th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Isabella Valancy Crawford Park scores 20.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:nearby residentstower-block recreation

Area · 0.25 ha

Vitality Score
21/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
20.7 / 100
Citywide
4th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Tower-Community Green Space
12th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in pocket Tower-Community Green Space (n=17)
Performance gap
-11
raw − expected · context confidence medium
modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 21 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 · p31
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p39
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Natural Comfort40 · p38
-1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park41 · p9
-0.9
Connectivity53 · p60
+0.5

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

Isabella Valancy Crawford Park doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

Isabella Valancy Crawford Park is held back by enclosure (41, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (41, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • 6 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy — passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -11; cohort: pocket Tower-Community Green Space).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Tower-Community Green Space

Classified as Tower-Community Green Space: 6 towers vs 1 mid-rise within 25 m on a 0.2 ha park

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (restaurant, cafe, retail) and 41 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
52.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~248 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)10
Transit stops (400 m)9
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.21
Park perimeter248 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

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

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%
40.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~533 m; 8 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.0/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)533 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon8
Tree density8.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used18

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
41.0 / 100

8 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 6 tower); avg edge height 61.6 m (~21 floors); 3.2 buildings per 100 m of 248 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges dominated by towers; 6 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m8
Buildings within 50 m8
Avg edge height61.6 m (~21 floors)
Tallest edge building157.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)1
Towers (≥ 13 floors)6
Frontage density3.22 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge13%
Tower share of edge75%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter248 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: rail, Union Station Rail Corridor, Union Station Rail Corridor, Union Station Rail Corridor, parking_lot, Union Station Rail Corridor, Union Station Rail Corridor, rail, Union Station Rail Corridor, Union Station Rail Corridor, Union Station Rail Corridor, rail, rail, Union Station Rail Corridor, Union Station Rail Corridor, rail, rail, rail, Union Station Rail Corridor. 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • restaurant — The pint20 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor20 m
  • rail23 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor25 m
  • cafe — Starbucks29 m
  • retail — Nicholby's32 m
  • rail32 m
  • rail34 m
  • rail35 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor37 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor37 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor38 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor42 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor44 m
  • rail45 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor45 m
  • rail45 m
  • parking lot46 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor48 m
  • restaurant — Boston Pizza48 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor49 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor49 m
  • rail49 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor50 m
  • rail51 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor56 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor63 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor63 m
  • retail — Rogers64 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • cafe — Second Cup70 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor70 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor72 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor75 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor76 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor77 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor77 m
  • restaurant — South Street Burger77 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor78 m
  • retail — CN Tower79 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor79 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor80 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor81 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor81 m
  • restaurant — La Diperie83 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor84 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor85 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor86 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor86 m
  • restaurant — Vagabondo Restobar87 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor96 m
  • cafe — Second Cup100 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor110 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor110 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor111 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor111 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor112 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor112 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor114 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor114 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor114 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor115 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor117 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor119 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor119 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor120 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor120 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor120 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor124 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor125 m
  • restaurant127 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor130 m
  • restaurant — 360 Restaurant132 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor132 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor136 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor136 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor137 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor137 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor138 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor138 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureIsabella Valancy Crawford Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    4th
  • Edge activation
    31th
  • Connectivity
    60th
  • Amenity diversity
    39th
  • Natural comfort
    38th
  • Enclosure
    9th

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 Isabella Valancy Crawford 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.
  • Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
  • 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.