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

Elmcrest Park

Waterfront Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~80th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Thuong Duong via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Elmcrest Park scores 41.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). 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 · 4.30 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
41.3 / 100
Citywide
80th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Waterfront Park
87th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Waterfront Park waterfront (n=126)
Performance gap
+11
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.
Elmcrest 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 41 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 · p30
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p38
-10.0
Connectivity74 · p95
+4.8
Natural Comfort78 · p91
+4.2
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p35
+1.0

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

Elmcrest Park works because its connectivity score (74) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (78) is also top decile (20 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 21 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Elmcrest Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (74, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Elmcrest 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 (60) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its waterfront park typology (+11 vs the median in medium Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 9% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 41% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop) and 9 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%
74.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 15 mapped paths/walkways and 52 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 21 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 18 estimated access points across ~3,099 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m17
Intersections within 100 m21
Paths/walkways (50 m)15
Sidewalk segments (50 m)52
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances18
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.55
Park perimeter3,099 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
78.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 40.9% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 9.1% water surface; 22 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.1/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 coverage40.9%
Canopy area1.76 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park9.1%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green90.9%
City-mapped trees inside polygon22
Tree density5.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)72.3
Sample points used44

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
60.0 / 100

255 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 250 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.8 m (~2 floors); 8.2 buildings per 100 m of 3,099 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m255
Buildings within 50 m255
Avg edge height4.8 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building26.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)5
Low-rise (< 3 floors)250
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density8.23 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge2%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter3,099 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (41)

  • transit stop: Burnhamthorpe Road At Silver Shadow Path2 m
  • transit stop: Burnhamthorpe Road At Silver Shadow Path27 m
  • transit stop: Ivybridge Drive29 m
  • transit stop: Burnhamthorpe Rd at Silver Shadow Path30 m
  • transit stop: Ivybridge Drive32 m
  • parking lot44 m
  • parking lot52 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • parking lot69 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • transit stop: Elmcrest Road100 m
  • transit stop: 590 Rathburn Road109 m
  • transit stop: Elmcrest Road113 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • retail: Pot "O" Gold Jewelry121 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes125 m
  • retail: Discount Video Plus128 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • retail: Magic Coin Laundry137 m
  • retail: Pet Valu137 m
  • restaurant: The Markland Restaurant & Pub143 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • parking lot153 m
  • retail: Tony's Barber Shop156 m
  • retail: Rutherford Massage Therapy Clinic157 m
  • transit stop: Melbert Road164 m
  • retail: New Family Cleaners165 m
  • cafe: Cafe Sympatico168 m
  • cafe: Starbucks170 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • retail: e Convenience173 m
  • retail: Wireless Point176 m
  • retail: New Waves Hairstyling179 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Hut Express181 m
  • retail: Party Land187 m
  • retail: Hasty Market195 m
  • parking lot197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureElmcrest 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
    80th
  • Edge activation
    30th
  • Connectivity
    95th
  • Amenity diversity
    38th
  • Natural comfort
    91th
  • Enclosure
    35th

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 score29 / 100
29.4 / 100

p15 citywide · p16 within Waterfront Park

Volume (saturated)7
Density / ha8
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
39
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 Elmcrest 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.