Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
St. Andrews Park - North York — site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksSt.Andrew-Windfields (40)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

St. Andrews Park - North York

Ravine / Naturalized Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

Photo by kwokhong lai via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

St. Andrews Park - North York scores 41 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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:escape into nature

Area · 9.62 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
41.0 / 100
Citywide
79th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
83rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=119)
Performance gap
+5
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

St. Andrews Park - North York — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

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
Amenity Diversity0 · p48
-10.0
Edge Activation22 · p79
-7.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p61
+1.6
Connectivity58 · p70
+1.5
Natural Comfort58 · p72
+1.2

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

St. Andrews Park - North York works because its edge activation score (22) is above average and its natural comfort (58) is also above-average.

What limits this park

St. Andrews Park - North York 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 edge activation (22, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

St. Andrews Park - North York 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 (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 22) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+5 vs the median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 10% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 2.9× a circle of equal area).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
21.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop) 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%
57.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 21 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~3,152 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m17
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)21
Transit stops (400 m)21
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.29
Park perimeter3,152 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% weightmeasured 75%
58.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 10.4% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~757 m; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.5/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 coverage10.4%
Canopy area1.00 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)757 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon14
Tree density1.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)45.0
Sample points used106

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.1 / 100

175 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (21 mid-rise, 154 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.7 m (~2 floors); 5.6 buildings per 100 m of 3,152 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 21 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m175
Buildings within 50 m175
Avg edge height6.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)21
Low-rise (< 3 floors)154
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.55 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge12%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter3,152 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (18)

  • parking lot8 m
  • transit stop — Toba Dr at Montressor Dr18 m
  • transit stop — Toba Dr at Fifeshire Rd42 m
  • transit stop — Toba Dr at Fifeshire Rd49 m
  • parking lot50 m
  • transit stop — Toba Dr at Montressor Dr51 m
  • parking lot93 m
  • transit stop — Heathcote Avenue96 m
  • transit stop — Heathcote Avenue122 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • transit stop — York Mills Road155 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Avenue187 m
  • transit stop — Fifeshire Road South187 m
  • transit stop189 m
  • transit stop190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSt. Andrews Park - North York

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    79th
  • Edge activation
    79th
  • Connectivity
    70th
  • Amenity diversity
    48th
  • Natural comfort
    72th
  • 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.

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
Visitor signal score
34/ 100
34.2 / 100

p28 citywide · p39 within Ravine / Naturalized Park

Volume (saturated)13
Density / ha7
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
73
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.77 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

Human activity signals

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 50%
Overall activity
9/ 100
9.0 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
14real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
29unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of St. Andrews Park - North Yorkmatters. 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.

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.