Wilderness / Conservation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Rouge (131)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 8)

Wilderness / Conservation Park, in the top tier overall (score 49, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.

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

Trca Lands ( 8) scores 48.9 / 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:hikingecological retreat

Area · 5.20 ha

Vitality Score

49/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

48.9 / 100

Citywide

94th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Wilderness / Conservation Park

97th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Wilderness / Conservation Park ravine (n=11)

Performance gap

+19

raw − expected · context confidence medium

strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 49 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 · p45

-10.0

Natural Comfort90 · p99

+6.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Edge Activation40 · p92

-2.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p54

+1.4

Connectivity45 · p44

-1.0

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 ( 8) works because its natural comfort score (90) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (40) is also top decile (90% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 8) 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 natural comfort (90, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 8) sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (90) significantly outpaces connectivity (45) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 49 versus an expected 30 for similar parks (large Wilderness / Conservation Park ravine) (gap +19).

Typology classification

confidence 80%

Wilderness / Conservation Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Wilderness / Conservation Park: 68% ravine, 90% canopy, 5 ha, connectivity 45, 0 amenity types. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (68% ravine overlap, 90% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

40.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) 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%

44.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 6 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~935 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m7

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)6

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.54

Park perimeter935 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%

90.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 90.4% estimated tree canopy; 67.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~176 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage90.4%

Canopy area4.70 ha

Inside ravine system67.5%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)176 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)98.5

Sample points used240

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.9 / 100

121 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 121 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.5 m (~2 floors); 12.9 buildings per 100 m of 935 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 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m121

Buildings within 50 m121

Avg edge height6.5 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building7.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)121

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density12.94 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter935 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

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 (5)

transit stop — Staines Road at Solstice Drive4 m
transit stop — Staines Road at Quietbrook Crescent27 m
transit stop — Staines Road at Hepatica Street41 m
transit stop — Staines Road at Hepatica Street86 m
rail — Havelock Subdivision173 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
94th
Edge activation
92th
Connectivity
44th
Amenity diversity
45th
Natural comfort
99th
Enclosure
54th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Nordheimer RavineRavine / Naturalized Park48
Ellesmere - Zaph RavineRavine / Naturalized Park47
Adam'S Creek RavineRavine / Naturalized Park47
Nordheimer RavineRavine / Naturalized Park47
Massey Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park45

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Withrow ParkNeighbourhood Park50
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
Ramsden ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Eglinton ParkNeighbourhood Park40

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 ( 8)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.

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.