Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Westgrove Park, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview (7)confidence moderate

Westgrove Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 59, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Michael A via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Westgrove Park scores 59.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (42.7). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 4.05 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennisBasketballPool
Facilities
WashroomBenchesCommunity centre
Vitality Score
59/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
59.4 / 100
Citywide
99th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=113)
Performance gap
+21
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong 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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Westgrove Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 59 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity70 · p92
+4.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p78
+2.6
Edge Activation43 · p94
-1.8
Natural Comfort47 · p51
-0.5
Amenity Diversity51 · p98
+0.2

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

Westgrove Park works because its amenity diversity score (51) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (43) is also top decile (8 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Westgrove Park 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 amenity diversity (51, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Westgrove Park 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 59 versus an expected 38 for similar parks (medium Athletic / Recreation Park) (gap +21).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, tennis, pool, sports_field). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (4.1 ha, framed by 6 mid-rise vs 1 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
42.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 3 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
70.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 32 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~859 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)10
Sidewalk segments (50 m)32
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances7
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.28
Park perimeter859 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
50.8 / 100

8 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, playground, tennis, washroom, bench, community_centre, …). 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% weightpartial 45%
46.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~12.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~744 m; 74 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (18.3/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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 system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)744 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon74
Tree density18.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used244

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
75.5 / 100

40 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 33 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 9.8 m (~3 floors); 4.7 buildings per 100 m of 859 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m40
Buildings within 50 m40
Avg edge height9.8 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building40.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)33
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density4.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge15%
Tower share of edge3%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter859 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 (8 types · 14 records)

  • basketball
  • playground
  • tennis
  • washroom
  • bench
  • community centre
  • pool
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (30)

  • transit stop: Longbourne Drive2 m
  • transit stop: Longbourne Dr at Martin Grove Rd4 m
  • transit stop: Longbourne Drive27 m
  • transit stop: Martin Grove Rd at The Westway29 m
  • transit stop: Redgrave Drive37 m
  • transit stop: 44 Longbourne Drive39 m
  • transit stop: The Westway at Martin Grove Rd46 m
  • transit stop: The Westway at Martin Grove Rd51 m
  • parking lot59 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • transit stop: Waterbury Dr at Redgrave Dr80 m
  • retail: MaryJane's Cannabis84 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • retail: Kitchen Food Fair92 m
  • restaurant: Subway97 m
  • retail: Lillian Cleaners103 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • retail: Supreme Travels113 m
  • retail: Classica Hair Design118 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Nova122 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • retail: Freedom Mobile127 m
  • retail: Westway Eyecare132 m
  • parking lot132 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • retail: Starfish Caribbean Market164 m
  • transit stop: Caverley Drive177 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • retail: LCBO192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureWestgrove 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
    99th
  • Edge activation
    94th
  • Connectivity
    92th
  • Amenity diversity
    98th
  • Natural comfort
    51th
  • Enclosure
    78th

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.

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.

Visitor signal score39 / 100
39.2 / 100

p41 citywide · p45 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)20
Density / ha24
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
126
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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 Westgrove 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

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.