Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Trca Lands ( 32) — site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksMimico (includes Humber Bay Shores) (17)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 32)

Waterfront Park, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~31th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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

Trca Lands ( 32) scores 30 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 1.03 ha

Vitality Score
30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
30.0 / 100
Citywide
31st
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
43rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Waterfront Park waterfront (n=126)
Performance gap
-0
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 · p31
-10.0
Edge Activation29 · p86
-5.3
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Natural Comfort60 · p75
+1.6
Connectivity45 · p45
-0.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park47 · p11
-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

Trca Lands ( 32) works because its edge activation score (29) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (60) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 32) is held back by enclosure (47, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (47, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 32) sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 23% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 7% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
28.9 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 20 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 6 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
45.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~673 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)2
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.59
Park perimeter673 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%
60.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~9.5% effective canopy (7.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 98.6% inside the ravine system; 22.5% water surface; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (13.6/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 coverage7.0%
Canopy area0.07 ha
Inside ravine system98.6%
Water surface inside park22.5%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green77.5%
City-mapped trees inside polygon14
Tree density13.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)60.7
Sample points used71

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
47.0 / 100

25 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 4 low-rise, 14 tower); avg edge height 71.5 m (~24 floors); 3.7 buildings per 100 m of 673 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges dominated by towers; 14 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m25
Buildings within 50 m25
Avg edge height71.5 m (~24 floors)
Tallest edge building147.3 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)4
Towers (≥ 13 floors)14
Frontage density3.71 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge28%
Tower share of edge56%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter673 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Lake Shore Boulevard West, 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 (50)

  • transit stop10 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West20 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West20 m
  • retail — LCBO22 m
  • retail — The Bone & Biscuit Co.24 m
  • retail — Platis Cleaners25 m
  • restaurant — Panago25 m
  • parking lot25 m
  • restaurant — Sunset Grill27 m
  • restaurant — Freshii33 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West35 m
  • retail — Massage Addict38 m
  • retail — Top Modern Nail Spa49 m
  • transit stop — Park Lawn Road51 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West62 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • cafe — Starbucks70 m
  • retail — Metro71 m
  • retail — Hasty Market75 m
  • transit stop — Park Lawn Road78 m
  • transit stop — Park Lawn Rd at Lake Shore Blvd W83 m
  • restaurant — Fresh Pizza Plus86 m
  • retail — Park Lawn Cleaners90 m
  • transit stop — Marine Parade Dr Loop at Lake Shore Blvd W91 m
  • retail — En Vogue Hair Salon & Spa97 m
  • retail — Mimico Nails Bar97 m
  • parking lot108 m
  • transit stop — Legion Road111 m
  • transit stop — Park Lawn Rd at Lake Shore Blvd W112 m
  • cafe — Avenue Cafe + Bistro118 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • transit stop — Legion Road132 m
  • transit stop135 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West152 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • transit stop — Legion Road160 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • highway — Lake Shore Boulevard West170 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision173 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision177 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision181 m
  • transit stop182 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision185 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision187 m
  • cafe — Holo Tea & Cafe187 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision191 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision195 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureTrca Lands ( 32)

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    31th
  • Edge activation
    86th
  • Connectivity
    45th
  • Amenity diversity
    31th
  • Natural comfort
    75th
  • Enclosure
    11th

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 Trca Lands ( 32)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

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.
  • Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
  • 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

  • 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.