Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Ferrand Drive Park, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Flemingdon Park (44)confidence moderate

Ferrand Drive Park

Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~86th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Supriyo Datta (Supriya Datta) via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Ferrand Drive Park scores 43.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (6.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.87 ha

Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
43.5 / 100
Citywide
86th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
89th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
+7
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…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Ferrand Drive 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 Activation6 · p66
-10.9
Amenity Diversity12 · p72
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity75 · p95
+4.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park75 · p77
+2.5
Natural Comfort47 · p55
-0.4

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

Ferrand Drive Park works because its connectivity score (75) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (75) is also top quartile (22 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 9 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Ferrand Drive 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 (75, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (75) significantly outpaces natural comfort (47): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (75) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+7 vs the median in small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (8669 m²) with strong building frontage (15.6 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
6.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (restaurant) 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%
74.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 13 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~372 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)13
Sidewalk segments (50 m)19
Transit stops (400 m)22
Estimated entrances10
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.61
Park perimeter372 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 (playground). 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% weightpartial 45%
47.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~12.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~492 m; 18 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (18.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)492 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon18
Tree density18.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used60

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
75.1 / 100

58 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 55 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 9.0 m (~3 floors); 15.6 buildings per 100 m of 372 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m58
Buildings within 50 m58
Avg edge height9.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building60.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)55
Towers (≥ 13 floors)3
Frontage density15.60 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge5%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter372 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (18)

  • restaurant: Cornerside Cafe67 m
  • parking lot95 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • parking lot123 m
  • parking lot126 m
  • transit stop: Deauville Lane148 m
  • transit stop: Opposite 25 St Dennis Dr149 m
  • parking lot156 m
  • transit stop: 25 St Dennis Dr158 m
  • community: Dennis R Timbrell Resource Centre160 m
  • community: Toronto Public Library - Flemingdon Park171 m
  • transit stop: 32 Saint Dennis Drive182 m
  • transit stop: St Dennis Drive186 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East191 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East192 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton195 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton195 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFerrand Drive 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
    86th
  • Edge activation
    66th
  • Connectivity
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    72th
  • Natural comfort
    55th
  • Enclosure
    77th

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
39.4 / 100

p41 citywide · p40 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)10
Density / ha38
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
54
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 Ferrand Drive 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.