Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Derrydowns Park, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)York University Heights (27)confidence moderate

Derrydowns Park

Waterfront Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 51, rank ~96th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Ice Bear via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Derrydowns Park scores 51.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 27.91 ha

Vitality Score
51/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
51.2 / 100
Citywide
96th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
35
median in very large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=44)
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…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Derrydowns 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 51 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 Diversity12 · p73
-7.6
Natural Comfort83 · p94
+4.9
Connectivity72 · p93
+4.5
Edge Activation33 · p88
-4.3
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p44
+1.2

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

Derrydowns Park works because its natural comfort score (83) is in the top tier and its connectivity (72) is also top decile (71% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (83, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Derrydowns 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 51 versus an expected 35 for similar parks (very large Waterfront Park waterfront) (gap +17).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 6% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (99% ravine overlap, 71% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 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%
72.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 13 mapped paths/walkways and 79 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 23 street intersections within 100 m; 37 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 12 estimated access points across ~5,148 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m18
Intersections within 100 m23
Paths/walkways (50 m)13
Sidewalk segments (50 m)79
Transit stops (400 m)37
Estimated entrances12
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.35
Park perimeter5,148 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (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%
82.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 71.2% estimated tree canopy; 99.0% inside the ravine system; 6.1% water surface; 80 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.9/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 coverage71.2%
Canopy area19.88 ha
Inside ravine system99.0%
Water surface inside park6.1%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green93.9%
City-mapped trees inside polygon80
Tree density2.9 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)73.4
Sample points used313

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.8 / 100

389 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (13 mid-rise, 374 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 7.6 buildings per 100 m of 5,148 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 13 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m389
Buildings within 50 m389
Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building46.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)13
Low-rise (< 3 floors)374
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density7.56 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge3%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter5,148 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (40)

  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop14 m
  • transit stop: Tobermory21 m
  • parking lot27 m
  • transit stop: Tobermory Drive37 m
  • transit stop: Grandravine Dr at Ollerton Rd39 m
  • transit stop: Topcliff Avenue45 m
  • transit stop: 1685 Finch Avenue West60 m
  • transit stop: Grandravine Dr at Futura Dr70 m
  • transit stop: Topcliff Avenue70 m
  • transit stop: Tobermory73 m
  • transit stop: Grandravine Dr at Ollerton Rd77 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • transit stop: Grandravine Dr at Futura Dr91 m
  • parking lot101 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • parking lot111 m
  • parking lot116 m
  • transit stop: Driftwood Ave at Yorkwoods Gate117 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • rail133 m
  • transit stop: Driftwood Ave at Yorkwoods Gate139 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • transit stop: Grandravine Dr at Driftwood Ave150 m
  • transit stop: Driftwood Ave at Grandravine Dr153 m
  • transit stop: Arleta Ave at Grandravine Dr153 m
  • transit stop: Arleta Ave at Medal Lane153 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • transit stop: Arleta Ave at Grandravine Dr159 m
  • transit stop: Arleta Ave at Medal Lane178 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • rail183 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • parking lot188 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDerrydowns 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
    96th
  • Edge activation
    88th
  • Connectivity
    93th
  • Amenity diversity
    73th
  • Natural comfort
    94th
  • Enclosure
    44th

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.

high-confidence match

“Serene park with a walking path & a fire pit in a natural setting with wooded areas & a creek.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score38 / 100
37.9 / 100

p36 citywide · p34 within Waterfront Park

Volume (saturated)28
Density / ha7
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
194
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.92 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 Derrydowns 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.

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.