Elmcrest Park
Ravine / Naturalized Park, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~91th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: amenity diversity.
Photo by Thuong Duong via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Elmcrest Park scores 48.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. 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.
Area · 3.77 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.
Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 48 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
Elmcrest Park works because its natural comfort score (79) is in the top tier and its connectivity (70) is also top decile (48% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).
What limits this park
Elmcrest Park is held back by amenity diversity (0, below-average).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (79, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Elmcrest Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+12 vs the median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 48% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 3.8× a circle of equal area).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) and 1 dead/hostile uses (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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 41 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 15 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 11 estimated access points across ~2,599 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 48.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 4.0% water surface; 21 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.6/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).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
249 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 245 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.6 m (~2 floors); 9.6 buildings per 100 m of 2,599 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints
Equity Context
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 (15)
- transit stop: Ivybridge Drive28 m
- transit stop: Ivybridge Drive32 m
- parking lot97 m
- transit stop: Elmcrest Road100 m
- transit stop: 590 Rathburn Road104 m
- transit stop: Elmcrest Road112 m
- parking lot134 m
- parking lot142 m
- parking lot154 m
- transit stop: Melbert Road160 m
- parking lot187 m
- parking lot190 m
- transit stop: Burnhamthorpe Road At Silver Shadow Path195 m
- parking lot196 m
- parking lot199 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality91th
- Edge activation85th
- Connectivity92th
- Amenity diversity29th
- Natural comfort92th
- Enclosure41th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Lawrence WalkwayCorridor / Linear Park49
- City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park46
- Birchcliff WoodsRavine / Naturalized Park43
- Queen'S GreenbeltRavine / Naturalized Park46
- Derrydowns ParkWaterfront Park51
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Paul Coffey ParkOther29
- Garnetwood ParkOther29
- Marita Paine ParkOther47
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- Laughton Heights ParkAthletic / Recreation Park29
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
p16 citywide · p21 within Ravine / Naturalized Park
Source: Google Places API · match high (0.92 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
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 Elmcrest 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.
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.
Data sources
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.