Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Traymore Park, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)High Park-Swansea (87)confidence moderate

Traymore Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~71th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

Traymore Park scores 39.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (78). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 0.31 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundFitness
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
39.7 / 100
Citywide
71st
of all 3,788 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
75th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
33
median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=207)
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).

Explain this score

Where did the 40 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 · p19
-12.5
Amenity Diversity27 · p77
-4.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park94 · p98
+4.4
Natural Comfort70 · p85
+2.9
Border Vacuum Risk78 (risk)
-2.8
Connectivity61 · p78
+2.1

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

Traymore Park works because its enclosure score (94) is one of the city's strongest and its natural comfort (70) is also top quartile (27 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Traymore 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 (78).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (94, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Traymore Park 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 (94) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (78): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+7 vs the median in small Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 0% canopy. Secondary read: Urban Plaza (3060 m², paved (0% canopy), 30.9 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 11 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway, rail). 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%
60.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~307 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)19
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.30
Park perimeter307 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (fitness, playground, 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 36%
69.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~33.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~227 m; 48 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (48.0/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, 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 system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)227 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon48
Tree density48.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used21

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
94.4 / 100

95 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (27 mid-rise, 65 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 11.9 m (~4 floors); 30.9 buildings per 100 m of 307 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 27 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m95
Buildings within 50 m95
Avg edge height11.9 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building44.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)27
Low-rise (< 3 floors)65
Towers (≥ 13 floors)3
Frontage density30.90 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge28%
Tower share of edge3%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter307 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
78.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Bloor Street West, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth, Line 2 Bloor-Danforth. 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 (3 types · 6 records)

  • fitness
  • playground
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (32)

  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth40 m
  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth44 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West47 m
  • transit stop49 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West52 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West56 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West62 m
  • transit stop65 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West74 m
  • restaurant: Rumi79 m
  • transit stop83 m
  • retail: Old Mill Dog Spa86 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West91 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • retail: Kobel99 m
  • school: Blyth Academy Etobicoke116 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West121 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West124 m
  • transit stop137 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West137 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • transit stop157 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West157 m
  • transit stop166 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons182 m
  • retail: Monarch Paints & Wallpaper190 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West195 m
  • parking lot196 m
  • retail: Bloor West Optometry196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTraymore 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
    71th
  • Edge activation
    19th
  • Connectivity
    78th
  • Amenity diversity
    77th
  • Natural comfort
    85th
  • Enclosure
    98th

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 Traymore 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
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.
  • 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.