Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Civic Squarecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Bay Street Corridor (76)confidence moderate

Lord and Lady Martonmere Gardens

Civic Square, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~54th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: connectivity.

Lord and Lady Martonmere Gardens scores 35.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 0.24 ha

What's here

Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
35.3 / 100
Citywide
54th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Civic Square
32nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in pocket Civic Square (n=28)
Performance gap
-2
raw − expected · context confidence medium
typical

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 Activation17 · p78
-8.2
Amenity Diversity12 · p64
-7.6
Connectivity33 · p30
-3.4
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park68 · p68
+1.8
Natural Comfort50 · p60
+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

Lord and Lady Martonmere Gardens works because its edge activation score (17) is above average and its enclosure (68) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Lord and Lady Martonmere Gardens is held back by connectivity (33, below-average).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (17, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Lord and Lady Martonmere Gardens 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 (68) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (54th) but typology rank is more modest (32nd): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Civic Square

Classified as Civic Square: tower-walled, low canopy (0%), tight frontage: reads as a civic square

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
17.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop, cafe, restaurant) 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% weightmeasured 85%
33.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 43 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~218 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)5
Transit stops (400 m)43
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter218 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 (bench). 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 used16

Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
68.1 / 100

44 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (20 mid-rise, 4 low-rise, 20 tower); avg edge height 43.4 m (~14 floors); 20.2 buildings per 100 m of 218 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 20 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 20 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m44
Buildings within 50 m44
Avg edge height43.4 m (~14 floors)
Tallest edge building95.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)20
Low-rise (< 3 floors)4
Towers (≥ 13 floors)20
Frontage density20.17 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge46%
Tower share of edge46%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter218 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: Toronto General Hospital Parking, 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 · 6 records)

  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (56)

  • parking lot46 m
  • parking lot: Toronto General Hospital Parking47 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard St at Elizabeth St West Side75 m
  • restaurant: Mercatto92 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons93 m
  • cafe: Starbucks101 m
  • cafe: Jimmy's Coffee108 m
  • retail: Gents Barbershop111 m
  • retail: MobiZone115 m
  • retail: Hollywood Cleaners117 m
  • cafe: Cotti Coffee119 m
  • retail: Joy Convenience119 m
  • restaurant: Wow! Shushi Bar119 m
  • restaurant: Dongrami121 m
  • retail: Native Medicine Garden126 m
  • cafe: Neo Coffee Bar128 m
  • restaurant: Blue Fig Middleterranean Restaurant131 m
  • restaurant: Bom Bibimbap133 m
  • cafe: Pronto Cafe134 m
  • restaurant: Deer Garden135 m
  • transit stop: Elizabeth Street135 m
  • transit stop: MaRS Discovery District136 m
  • retail: Downtown Toronto Honey Massage136 m
  • restaurant: Soup it Up137 m
  • cafe: Starbucks140 m
  • transit stop: Elizabeth Street140 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons140 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons141 m
  • retail: First Copy144 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street West145 m
  • retail: Pretty Yonge Thing156 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street West157 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Pizza159 m
  • cafe: Black Wolf Coffee160 m
  • cafe: Incha161 m
  • restaurant: Subway161 m
  • restaurant164 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard St West at University Ave167 m
  • cafe: Aroma Espresso Bar167 m
  • restaurant: Teriyaki Experience168 m
  • restaurant: FLOCK rotisserie + greens171 m
  • restaurant: Subway171 m
  • retail: Fine Food Market174 m
  • highway: University Avenue178 m
  • transit stop: Bay Street178 m
  • cafe: Starbucks180 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University182 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • retail: Rabba184 m
  • transit stop: College Street185 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street West191 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University192 m
  • restaurant: The Sandwich Delight193 m
  • restaurant: Cafe 85°195 m
  • restaurant: Panago197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureLord and Lady Martonmere Gardens
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
    54th
  • Edge activation
    78th
  • Connectivity
    30th
  • Amenity diversity
    64th
  • Natural comfort
    60th
  • Enclosure
    68th

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 Lord and Lady Martonmere Gardensmatters. 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.