Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Eringate Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Eringate-Centennial-West Deane (11)confidence moderate

Eringate Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 50, rank ~96th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Pavel Boldyrev via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Eringate Park scores 50.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (28.4). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 3.86 ha

Vitality Score
50/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
50.4 / 100
Citywide
96th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+13
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.
Eringate 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 50 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
Connectivity74 · p95
+4.8
Edge Activation32 · p88
-4.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p94
-4.3
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park69 · p67
+1.9
Natural Comfort41 · p41
-1.3

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

Eringate Park works because its connectivity score (74) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (28) is also top decile (18 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 16 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Eringate 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 connectivity (74, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (74) significantly outpaces natural comfort (41): 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 50 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 3.9 ha, framed by 13 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) and 1 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%
74.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 35 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 16 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 9 estimated access points across ~1,063 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m16
Intersections within 100 m16
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)35
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances9
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.50
Park perimeter1,063 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, 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%
41.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.4% effective canopy (0.9% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1119 m; 41 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.6/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.9%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,119 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon41
Tree density10.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)7.1
Sample points used235

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
69.0 / 100

150 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (13 mid-rise, 137 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.6 m (~2 floors); 14.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,063 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 13 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m150
Buildings within 50 m150
Avg edge height4.6 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)13
Low-rise (< 3 floors)137
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density14.11 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge9%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,063 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (3 types · 3 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (15)

  • transit stop14 m
  • parking lot16 m
  • transit stop: Wellesworth Dr at Eringate Dr46 m
  • transit stop: Wellesworth Dr at Eringate Dr59 m
  • transit stop: Eringate Dr at Sanctbury Pl77 m
  • restaurant: Subway118 m
  • restaurant: Golden Wok128 m
  • retail: Dollar Mahal plus Convenience137 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Pizza143 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • transit stop: Gentian Dr at Wellesworth Dr174 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • transit stop: Wellesworth Dr at Gentian Dr189 m
  • transit stop: Eringate Dr at Sigmont Rd196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureEringate 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
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    94th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    67th

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
Visitor signal score39 / 100
38.6 / 100

p38 citywide · p46 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)18
Density / ha22
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
110
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 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 Eringate 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.

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.