Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Tom Riley Park, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Kingsway South

Tom Riley Park

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 45, rank ~86th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Tom Riley Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Tom Riley Park scores 45.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 15.02 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennisBasketballPoolLawn bowling
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaShelterBenchesCommunity centrePublic art

Getting around

Paths

2.2 km of mapped path, 93% paved.

1 flight of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Typically 31 m to the nearest bench, and 85 m at the far end.

Arrival

Parking inside the park. 1 of 38 nearby lots reporting 3 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
45/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
45.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
86th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Waterfront Park
87th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=62)
Performance gap
+7
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Public art in this park

Near the park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 45 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 · p14
-12.5
Connectivity82 · p99
+6.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Amenity Diversity67 · p100
+3.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park72 · p74
+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

Tom Riley Park works because its amenity diversity score (67) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (82) is also top decile (13 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Tom Riley Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (67, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Tom Riley Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (82) significantly outpaces natural comfort (56): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (72) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+7 vs the median in large Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 7% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (80% ravine overlap, 8% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 25 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 59 dead/hostile uses (rail, parking_lot, 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%
82.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 45 mapped paths/walkways and 83 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 34 street intersections within 100 m; 1 subway or GO station, 20 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 26 estimated access points across ~3,219 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m28
Intersections within 100 m34
Paths/walkways (50 m)45
Sidewalk segments (50 m)83
Transit stops (400 m)21 (1 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 20 bus)
Estimated entrances26
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.87
Park perimeter3,219 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
66.5 / 100

13 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, playground, sports_field, tennis, washroom, basketball, …). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 2 public artworks in the park and 2 nearby add a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
55.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 7.8% estimated tree canopy; 80.2% inside the ravine system; 7.2% water surface; 178 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.8/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 coverage7.8%
Canopy area1.17 ha
Inside ravine system80.2%
Water surface inside park7.2%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green92.8%
City-mapped trees inside polygon178
Tree density11.8 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)51.2
Sample points used167

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
71.5 / 100

125 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (17 mid-rise, 92 low-rise, 16 tower); avg edge height 14.6 m (~5 floors); 3.9 buildings per 100 m of 3,219 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 16 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 17 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m125
Buildings within 50 m125
Avg edge height14.6 m (~5 floors)
Tallest edge building73.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)17
Low-rise (< 3 floors)92
Towers (≥ 13 floors)16
Frontage density3.88 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge14%
Tower share of edge13%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter3,219 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, parking_lot, parking_lot, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, parking_lot, parking_lot, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, Galt Subdivision, parking_lot, parking_lot, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Bloor Street West, Bloor Street West, Bloor Street West, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Central Park, parking_lot, rail, rail, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Bloor Street West, Bloor Street West, Humberview Chevrolet Car Storage. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

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 (13 types · 91 records)

  • community centre
  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • washroom
  • basketball
  • bench
  • bowling green
  • drinking water
  • picnic
  • pool
  • shelter
  • art

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • retail: Tennis Club0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth0 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth0 m
  • parking lot: Central Park0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Cordova Avenue3 m
  • transit stop3 m
  • transit stop: Islington Avenue3 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth4 m
  • transit stop5 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street West6 m
  • rail6 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision7 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision7 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth7 m
  • transit stop8 m
  • rail9 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth9 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision10 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision10 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision10 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision11 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West13 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West13 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West14 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision14 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision15 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth16 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision18 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth23 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision23 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision24 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision24 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision25 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision26 m
  • transit stop: Islington Avenue28 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision28 m
  • transit stop: Central Park Roadway at Islington Ave29 m
  • transit stop: 1300 Islington Avenue29 m
  • retail: Beautique Spa & Laser Inc.36 m
  • parking lot37 m
  • retail: SkinMed Aesthetics38 m
  • retail: iLux Beauty38 m
  • parking lot: Humberview Chevrolet Car Storage40 m
  • transit stop: Central Park Roadway South Side41 m
  • transit stop: Islington Ave at Dundas St W42 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West45 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West47 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • parking lot51 m
  • parking lot52 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth56 m
  • restaurant: Big Slice Kitchen56 m
  • parking lot58 m
  • parking lot61 m
  • parking lot62 m
  • restaurant: Papa John's63 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • retail: Montgomery Alterations & Drycleaning65 m
  • parking lot: Humberview Chevrolet Car Storage66 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth67 m
  • parking lot67 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth69 m
  • parking lot69 m
  • parking lot: TTC commuter parking TPA 80470 m
  • retail: Skin Care Clinic72 m
  • transit stop: 50 Cordova Avenue73 m
  • transit stop: Cordova Avenue74 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • transit stop84 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West89 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • restaurant: Pumpernickel’s95 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTom Riley Park
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
    86th
  • Edge activation
    14th
  • Connectivity
    99th
  • Amenity diversity
    100th
  • Natural comfort
    72th
  • Enclosure
    74th

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 Tom Riley Park 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.
  • 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

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.