Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Measurement Park — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)The Beaches (63)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Measurement Park

Other, below average overall (score 30, rank ~28th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Measurement Park scores 29.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (42). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.07 ha

Vitality Score
30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 55%

Data Confidence
29.5 / 100
Citywide
28th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
69th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
22
median in pocket Other (n=27)
Performance gap
+8
raw − expected · context confidence medium
modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 Activation2 · p65
-12.0
Amenity Diversity0 · p66
-10.0
Natural Comfort36 · p27
-2.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park65 · p58
+1.5
Connectivity57 · p68
+1.3
Border Vacuum Risk42 (risk)
+0.8

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

Measurement Park works because its connectivity score (57) is middle of the pack and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average (18 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

Measurement Park is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (42).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (36, below-average).

Jacobs reading

Measurement 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 (65) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 2) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its other typology (+8 vs the median in pocket Other).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (28th), it ranks highly among similar others (69th) — 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 (0.1 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 2.8/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
2.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 6 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
56.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~145 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.38
Park perimeter145 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% weightinferred 36%
36.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~212 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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)212 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used8

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%
64.9 / 100

4 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 3 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.6 m (~3 floors); 2.8 buildings per 100 m of 145 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m4
Buildings within 50 m4
Avg edge height8.6 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building9.7 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)3
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.76 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge25%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)8%
Park perimeter145 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
42.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Eastern Avenue. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 (36)

  • parking lot27 m
  • transit stop — Queen Street East28 m
  • highway — Eastern Avenue44 m
  • transit stop — Kingston Road58 m
  • transit stop — Kingston Road62 m
  • transit stop — Kingston Road66 m
  • highway — Eastern Avenue73 m
  • parking lot — Impark75 m
  • highway — Kingston Road76 m
  • retail — Greenwood Off Track Wagering85 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • transit stop — Kingston Road90 m
  • parking lot105 m
  • cafe — Country Style108 m
  • retail — You and Me Smoke & Gift113 m
  • retail — Dog Haven Studio118 m
  • retail — Tokyo Shiatsu122 m
  • retail — ETC Laundromats122 m
  • retail — Major Convenience124 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • transit stop — Queen Street East149 m
  • transit stop — Queen Street East154 m
  • parking lot — Impark156 m
  • retail — Pet Valu158 m
  • retail — Fluff Dog Wellness Spa175 m
  • restaurant — Harvey's176 m
  • parking lot — Winners Circle/Northern Dancer178 m
  • highway — Kingston Road183 m
  • retail — LCBO185 m
  • highway — Eastern Avenue188 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • restaurant — Casa di Giorgio197 m
  • parking lot — Church parking198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMeasurement Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    28th
  • Edge activation
    65th
  • Connectivity
    68th
  • Amenity diversity
    66th
  • Natural comfort
    27th
  • Enclosure
    58th

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 Measurement 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

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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.