Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Othercluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)confidence low

Misty Sugar Park

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~53th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: connectivity.

Misty Sugar Park scores 35.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 2.50 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldBasketballGarden
Facilities
ShelterBenches
Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 49%

Data Confidence
35.1 / 100
Citywide
53rd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
85th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Other (n=181)
Performance gap
+5
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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 Activation9 · p69
-10.3
Connectivity15 · p11
-7.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Amenity Diversity43 · p95
-1.4
Natural Comfort50 · p59
+0.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park50 · p16
+0.0

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

Misty Sugar Park works because its amenity diversity score (43) is in the top tier and its edge activation (9) is also above-average (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Misty Sugar Park is held back by connectivity (15, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (43, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (50) significantly outpaces connectivity (15): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its other typology (+5 vs the median in medium Other).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (53rd), it ranks highly among similar others (85th): strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (2.5 ha, 6 amenity types, frontage 0.0/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
9.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 2 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% weightpartial 45%
14.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~837 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter837 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
43.2 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, bench, garden, playground, shelter, sports_field). 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% weightinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used174

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightinferred 20%
50.0 / 100

No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.

Buildings within 25 m0
Buildings within 50 m0
Avg edge height0.0 m (~0 floors)
Tallest edge building0.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)100%
Park perimeter837 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected)

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 (6 types · 11 records)

  • basketball
  • bench
  • garden
  • playground
  • shelter
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (9)

  • parking lot6 m
  • transit stop: Maple Sugar Lane / Daniel Reaman Crescent15 m
  • transit stop: Maple Sugar Lane / Daniel Reaman Crescent50 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • transit stop: Maple Sugar Lane / Sugarforest Drive114 m
  • transit stop: Maple Sugar Lane / Thronhill Woods Drive164 m
  • transit stop: Maple Sugar Lane / Sugarforest Drive173 m
  • highway: Highway 7186 m
  • transit stop: Maple Sugar Lane / Thronhill Woods Drive191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMisty Sugar 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
    53th
  • Edge activation
    69th
  • Connectivity
    11th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    59th
  • Enclosure
    16th

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.

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 Misty Sugar 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.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.