Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)High Park-Swansea (87)confidence moderate

Rennie Park

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by arturoAlejandro flores paredes via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Rennie Park scores 44.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 9.96 ha

Vitality Score

44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

44.1 / 100

Citywide

88th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Waterfront Park

91st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=65)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Rennie 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.

Explain this score

Where did the 44 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 · p59

-12.5

Connectivity80 · p98

+5.9

Natural Comfort82 · p92

+4.7

Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)

-3.4

Amenity Diversity35 · p98

-3.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park75 · p76

+2.5

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

Rennie Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (35) is also top decile (31 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 30 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Rennie Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 84.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (80, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Rennie 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 (75) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (84): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+7 vs the median in large Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%

Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 25% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 47% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop) and 12 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%

79.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 20 mapped paths/walkways and 69 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 30 street intersections within 100 m; 31 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 20 estimated access points across ~2,923 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m23

Intersections within 100 m30

Paths/walkways (50 m)20

Sidewalk segments (50 m)69

Transit stops (400 m)31

Estimated entrances20

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.79

Park perimeter2,923 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (picnic, playground, tennis, washroom). 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%

81.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 47.3% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 24.5% water surface; 147 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (14.8/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 coverage47.3%

Canopy area4.71 ha

Inside ravine system100.0%

Water surface inside park24.5%

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

Estimated green75.5%

City-mapped trees inside polygon147

Tree density14.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)86.3

Sample points used110

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

74.6 / 100

310 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (47 mid-rise, 263 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.0 m (~2 floors); 10.6 buildings per 100 m of 2,923 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 47 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m310

Buildings within 50 m310

Avg edge height7.0 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building14.2 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)47

Low-rise (< 3 floors)263

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density10.61 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge15%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter2,923 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

84.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. 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 · 4 records)

picnic
playground
tennis
washroom

Nearby active-edge features (34)

parking lot3 m
transit stop: 44 Coe Hill Dr16 m
parking lot16 m
parking lot17 m
transit stop: Runnymede Rd at Morningside Ave17 m
parking lot17 m
parking lot24 m
parking lot29 m
transit stop: Windermere Ave at Saint Olaves Rd41 m
parking lot46 m
transit stop: Runnymede Rd at Morningside Ave49 m
transit stop: Windermere Ave at Saint Olaves Rd54 m
parking lot55 m
parking lot69 m
parking lot71 m
parking lot72 m
parking lot78 m
transit stop: 80 Coe Hill Dr97 m
transit stop: Windermere Ave at Coe Hill Dr99 m
transit stop: Budgell Terrace106 m
parking lot115 m
parking lot116 m
transit stop: Coe Hill Dr at The Queensway134 m
transit stop: Ellis Avenue134 m
transit stop: Lavinia Ave136 m
parking lot140 m
transit stop: Ellis Avenue145 m
parking lot152 m
community: Swansea Community Recreation Centre160 m
transit stop: 89 Windermere Ave170 m
transit stop: Ellis Avenue174 m
transit stop: Windermere Avenue183 m
transit stop: Windermere Avenue189 m
transit stop: Ellis Avenue196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
88th
Edge activation
59th
Connectivity
98th
Amenity diversity
98th
Natural comfort
92th
Enclosure
76th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Cruickshank ParkWaterfront Park38
L'Amoreaux North ParkWaterfront Park44
G. Ross Lord ParkWaterfront Park39
Earl Bales ParkRavine / Naturalized Park41
Lawrence Park RavineRavine / Naturalized Park41

Most opposite parks

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

Queen'S Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park49
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
Trca Lands ( 58)Waterfront Park18
Danforth Gardens ParkParkette42

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.

high-confidence match

“A 24-acre park with an ice rink, wading pool, tennis courts, playground, picnic shelter & ponds.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score56 / 100

56.4 / 100

p78 citywide · p79 within Waterfront Park

Volume (saturated)49

Density / ha33

Rating contribution90

Match dampener×1.00

Average rating

★ 4.6

out of 5

Ratings collected

481

total reviews

Photos uploaded

total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.99 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 Rennie 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.
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.
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.