Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Parkwoods-Donalda (45)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Trca Lands ( 81)

Waterfront Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 52, rank ~97th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Trca Lands ( 81) scores 51.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and edge activation. 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:waterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 7.53 ha

Vitality Score

52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

51.7 / 100

Citywide

97th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

98th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=65)

Performance gap

+14

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 52 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 · p12

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort74 · p87

+3.6

Edge Activation57 · p98

+1.8

Connectivity54 · p63

+0.9

Enclosure / Eyes on Park54 · p19

+0.4

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 ( 81) works because its edge activation score (57) is one of the city's strongest and its natural comfort (74) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Trca Lands ( 81) is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (57, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Trca Lands ( 81) sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 52 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (large Waterfront Park waterfront) (gap +14).

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Wilderness / Conservation Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 7% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Wilderness / Conservation Park (100% ravine, 34% canopy, 8 ha, connectivity 54, 0 amenity types).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

57.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 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%

54.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 25 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,687 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)22

Transit stops (400 m)25

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.41

Park perimeter1,687 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%

73.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 34.1% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 6.5% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage34.1%

Canopy area2.57 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park6.5%

Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)

Estimated green93.5%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)66.2

Sample points used170

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

54.4 / 100

62 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 61 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.2 m (~2 floors); 3.7 buildings per 100 m of 1,687 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m62

Buildings within 50 m62

Avg edge height5.2 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building9.0 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)61

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density3.67 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge2%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,687 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 (23)

transit stop — Moatfield Drive0 m
transit stop — Graydon Hall Drive4 m
transit stop — Duncan Mill Road36 m
transit stop — Duncan Mill Rd at Don Mills Road east side stop38 m
transit stop — Moatfield Drive40 m
transit stop — Duncan Mill Rd at Don Mills Road west side stop44 m
transit stop — Duncan Mill Rd at Don Mills Road west side stop66 m
transit stop — Don Mills Road75 m
parking lot104 m
transit stop — York Mills Rd at Silverdale Cres112 m
transit stop — York Mills Road113 m
transit stop — York Mills Road119 m
transit stop — Silverdale Cres at York Mills Rd141 m
parking lot144 m
transit stop — Silverdale Cres at York Mills Rd151 m
parking lot155 m
transit stop — York Mills Rd at Valentine Dr157 m
transit stop — Don Mills Road164 m
parking lot172 m
transit stop — 2040 Don Mills Road177 m
transit stop182 m
transit stop — 20 Greydon Hall Drive188 m
parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
97th
Edge activation
98th
Connectivity
63th
Amenity diversity
12th
Natural comfort
87th
Enclosure
19th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park53
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park50
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park51
Cedarbrae Golf And Country ClubRavine / Naturalized Park52
West Highland Creek WatercourseWaterfront Park49

Most opposite parks

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

Ramsden ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Withrow ParkNeighbourhood Park50
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
Trca Lands ( 58)Waterfront Park18
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 ( 81)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.

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.