Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Woodbine-Lumsden (60)confidence moderate

Stan Wadlow Park

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

Photo by Hobert Nadales via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Stan Wadlow Park scores 51.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (25.1). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban lifefamilies

Area · 8.57 ha

Vitality Score

52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

51.5 / 100

Citywide

97th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

96th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)

Performance gap

+17

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…

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

Stan Wadlow 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 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

Edge Activation25 · p84

-6.2

Connectivity78 · p97

+5.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park67 · p63

+1.7

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Natural Comfort46 · p53

-0.5

Amenity Diversity48 · p100

-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

Stan Wadlow Park works because its amenity diversity score (48) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (78) is also top decile (7 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Stan Wadlow Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (48, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Stan Wadlow Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (78) significantly outpaces natural comfort (46): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 52 versus an expected 35 for similar parks (large Neighbourhood Park) (gap +17).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 8.6 ha, framed by 8 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

25.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop) and 4 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%

77.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 22 mapped paths/walkways and 40 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 20 street intersections within 100 m; 29 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~1,286 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m19

Intersections within 100 m20

Paths/walkways (50 m)22

Sidewalk segments (50 m)40

Transit stops (400 m)29

Estimated entrances8

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.48

Park perimeter1,286 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

48.3 / 100

7 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre, dog_area, playground, skatepark, sports_field, tennis, …). 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%

46.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.2% effective canopy (0.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 15.4% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~271 m; 51 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (6.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.4%

Canopy area0.03 ha

Inside ravine system15.4%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)271 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon51

Tree density6.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)41.5

Sample points used246

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

67.0 / 100

157 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 149 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.4 m (~2 floors); 12.2 buildings per 100 m of 1,286 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m157

Buildings within 50 m157

Avg edge height5.4 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building17.5 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8

Low-rise (< 3 floors)149

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density12.21 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge5%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,286 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (7 types · 8 records)

community centre
dog area
playground
skatepark
sports field
tennis
washroom

Nearby active-edge features (29)

parking lot0 m
transit stop: Gledhill Avenue0 m
transit stop: Cedarvale Avenue1 m
transit stop: Haldon Avenue14 m
transit stop: Stan Wadlow Park17 m
transit stop: Gledhill Avenue18 m
transit stop: Cedarvale Avenue29 m
transit stop: 9 Haldon Avenue (East York Acres)30 m
parking lot41 m
parking lot43 m
parking lot58 m
transit stop: Westlake Crescent81 m
parking lot115 m
transit stop: Westlake Crescent116 m
parking lot123 m
retail: Silver Star Beauty Salon141 m
retail: Coin Laundry141 m
retail: Curves Weight Loss Centre141 m
retail: Ditchon Greenhouse141 m
parking lot142 m
transit stop: Woodbine Avenue146 m
transit stop: Bracebridge Avenue151 m
transit stop: Cosburn Avenue154 m
transit stop: Plains Road169 m
transit stop: Cosburn Avenue170 m
parking lot172 m
transit stop: Woodbine Avenue174 m
parking lot176 m
retail182 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
97th
Edge activation
84th
Connectivity
97th
Amenity diversity
100th
Natural comfort
53th
Enclosure
63th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Edithvale ParkCorridor / Linear Park49
Dentonia ParkAthletic / Recreation Park47
Milliken ParkDestination Park46
Smithfield ParkAthletic / Recreation Park49
Bridlewood ParkAthletic / Recreation Park53

Most opposite parks

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

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

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

“8.5 hectares of green space featuring baseball fields, a playground & an off-leash dog area.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score70 / 100

69.5 / 100

p90 citywide · p87 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)67

Density / ha54

Rating contribution88

Match dampener×1.00

Average rating

★ 4.5

out of 5

Ratings collected

1,024

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 Stan Wadlow 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.
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.
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.