Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
York Mills Valley Park, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills (41)confidence moderate

York Mills Valley Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~54th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

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

York Mills Valley Park scores 35.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 3.85 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundTennis
Facilities
Drinking waterBenches
Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
35.2 / 100
Citywide
54th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
56th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=235)
Performance gap
-1
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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 35 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 · p51
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p89
+3.3
Amenity Diversity33 · p86
-3.3
Connectivity65 · p85
+3.0
Natural Comfort48 · p53
-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

York Mills Valley Park works because its enclosure score (83) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (33) is also top quartile (24 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

York Mills Valley Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 100.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (83, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

York Mills Valley 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 (83) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 1% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (3.8 ha, framed by 24 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 16 dead/hostile uses (highway, parking_lot, 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%
65.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 22 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 16 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~936 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m13
Intersections within 100 m16
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)22
Transit stops (400 m)7
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.39
Park perimeter936 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
33.4 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, bench, drinking_water). 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% weightmeasured 75%
47.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~5.3% effective canopy (1.3% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 100.0% inside the ravine system; 1.3% water surface; 29 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.5/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 coverage1.3%
Canopy area0.05 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park1.3%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green98.7%
City-mapped trees inside polygon29
Tree density7.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)12.5
Sample points used227

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
83.4 / 100

53 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (24 mid-rise, 29 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.6 m (~4 floors); 5.7 buildings per 100 m of 936 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 24 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m53
Buildings within 50 m53
Avg edge height10.6 m (~4 floors)
Tallest edge building32.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)24
Low-rise (< 3 floors)29
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge45%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter936 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: Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street, Yonge Street. 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 (4 types · 11 records)

  • playground
  • tennis
  • bench
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (27)

  • transit stop: Mill Street5 m
  • highway: Yonge Street9 m
  • highway: Yonge Street10 m
  • highway: Yonge Street11 m
  • highway: Yonge Street12 m
  • highway: Yonge Street14 m
  • highway: Yonge Street21 m
  • highway: Yonge Street22 m
  • highway: Yonge Street23 m
  • highway: Yonge Street26 m
  • highway: Yonge Street26 m
  • transit stop33 m
  • parking lot: Miller Tavern Parking55 m
  • highway: Yonge Street58 m
  • highway: Yonge Street59 m
  • highway: Yonge Street65 m
  • rail67 m
  • highway: Yonge Street79 m
  • highway: Yonge Street112 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • highway: Yonge Street145 m
  • highway: Yonge Street157 m
  • highway: Yonge Street162 m
  • transit stop: Yonge St at McGlashan165 m
  • transit stop: Yonge St at McGlashan171 m
  • rail189 m
  • highway: Yonge Street197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureYork Mills Valley 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
    54th
  • Edge activation
    51th
  • Connectivity
    85th
  • Amenity diversity
    86th
  • Natural comfort
    53th
  • Enclosure
    89th

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 York Mills Valley 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • 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.