Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Bathurst Quay, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Niagara (82)confidence moderate

Bathurst Quay

Waterfront Park, below average overall (score 29, rank ~24th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Bathurst Quay scores 28.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (6). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (60). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 0.58 ha

What's here

Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
29/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
28.6 / 100
Citywide
24th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Waterfront Park
34th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in small Waterfront Park waterfront (n=112)
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.

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 29 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
-11.0
Amenity Diversity12 · p59
-7.6
Natural Comfort31 · p15
-2.9
Border Vacuum Risk60 (risk)
-1.0
Connectivity54 · p66
+0.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park53 · p24
+0.3

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

Bathurst Quay works because its connectivity score (54) is middle of the pack and its edge activation (6) is also above-average (11 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 9 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Bathurst Quay is held back by natural comfort (31, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (60).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (31, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Bathurst Quay is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

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

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 13% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 6.7× a circle of equal area).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
6.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 14 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, retail, school, community, cafe) and 8 dead/hostile uses (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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
53.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,806 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)14
Sidewalk segments (50 m)19
Transit stops (400 m)11
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.17
Park perimeter1,806 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (bench). Diversity, not raw count, 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

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
30.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 12.5% water surface. Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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 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 to 100)54.4
Sample points used8

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
52.9 / 100

30 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 10 low-rise, 5 tower); avg edge height 25.0 m (~8 floors); 1.7 buildings per 100 m of 1,806 m perimeter (moderate frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 5 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m30
Buildings within 50 m30
Avg edge height25.0 m (~8 floors)
Tallest edge building52.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)10
Towers (≥ 13 floors)5
Frontage density1.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge50%
Tower share of edge17%
Blank-edge share (proxy)45%
Park perimeter1,806 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
60.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, The Gravel Lot, parking_lot. 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: 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 (1 types · 5 records)

  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (46)

  • transit stop: Portland6 m
  • cafe: Aroma Espresso Bar8 m
  • transit stop: Dan Leckie Way19 m
  • transit stop: Billy Bishop Airport - Queens Quay21 m
  • parking lot21 m
  • parking lot30 m
  • parking lot: The Gravel Lot34 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • restaurant: Maguro House36 m
  • school: City School36 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • community: Waterfront Neighbourhood Centre46 m
  • restaurant: National Yacht Club Restaurant51 m
  • restaurant: Iruka Sushi59 m
  • retail: Mike the Ticket Host60 m
  • transit stop: Queens Quay West, Billy Bishop Airport69 m
  • retail: Lincare Dry Cleaners Ltd.72 m
  • restaurant: Blomboon Restaurant & Bar73 m
  • transit stop: Dan Leckie Way78 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West92 m
  • parking lot: Marina Parking96 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West106 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West107 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West111 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West115 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West119 m
  • retail: Ride One119 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West131 m
  • retail: T.O. Tuck Shop134 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West135 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • transit stop: Bathurst Street, Billy Bishop Airport153 m
  • retail: Harbour Green Farms161 m
  • retail: Salon 500 Hair and Esthetics161 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • retail: Snatched TO170 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West173 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West174 m
  • restaurant186 m
  • retail: Loblaws187 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard West195 m
  • parking lot198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureBathurst Quay
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
    24th
  • Edge activation
    65th
  • Connectivity
    66th
  • Amenity diversity
    59th
  • Natural comfort
    15th
  • Enclosure
    24th

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 Bathurst Quaymatters. 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • 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: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.