Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills (41)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Mount Hope Catholic Cemetery

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~75th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.

Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Mount Hope Catholic Cemetery scores 39.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park 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 for:daily urban life

Area · 19.71 ha

Vitality Score

40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

39.9 / 100

Citywide

75th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

65th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 40 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

Amenity Diversity0 · p15

-10.0

Edge Activation17 · p77

-8.2

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park76 · p78

+2.6

Connectivity58 · p70

+1.6

Natural Comfort43 · p43

-1.1

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

Mount Hope Catholic Cemetery works because its enclosure score (76) is above average and its edge activation (17) is also top quartile (32 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Mount Hope Catholic Cemetery is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Mount Hope Catholic Cemetery 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+5 vs the median in large Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 19.7 ha, framed by 32 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

17.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 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% weightmeasured 85%

57.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 27 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 7 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~2,011 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9

Intersections within 100 m14

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)27

Transit stops (400 m)7

Estimated entrances2

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.45

Park perimeter2,011 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%

42.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 2.2% estimated tree canopy; 8.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~130 m; 36 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.8/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage2.2%

Canopy area0.44 ha

Inside ravine system8.5%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)130 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon36

Tree density1.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)36.0

Sample points used224

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

75.9 / 100

229 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (32 mid-rise, 197 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.4 m (~2 floors); 11.4 buildings per 100 m of 2,011 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 32 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m229

Buildings within 50 m229

Avg edge height7.4 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building29.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)32

Low-rise (< 3 floors)197

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density11.39 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge14%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter2,011 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (10)

transit stop — Kilgour Road (CNIB)3 m
transit stop — Kilgour Road (CNIB)29 m
parking lot69 m
parking lot87 m
transit stop — Broadway Avenue91 m
transit stop — Broadway Avenue125 m
retail — Circle K129 m
parking lot130 m
parking lot134 m
cafe — Tim Hortons136 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
75th
Edge activation
77th
Connectivity
70th
Amenity diversity
15th
Natural comfort
43th
Enclosure
78th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

North York Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park39
OAKRIDGE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building GroundsUrban Plaza37
City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza38
George Chater ParketteUrban Plaza30
Robert Bateman ParketteRavine / Naturalized Park43

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26

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 Mount Hope Catholic Cemeterymatters. 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.

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

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.