Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)West Hill (136)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Megan Park

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Megan Park scores 35.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (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:daily urban life

Area · 3.39 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

35.4 / 100

Citywide

56th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

42nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-2

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

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 Activation0 · p44

-12.5

Amenity Diversity12 · p80

-7.6

Connectivity65 · p82

+3.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p41

+1.1

Border Vacuum Risk42 (risk)

+0.8

Natural Comfort54 · p67

+0.6

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

Megan Park works because its connectivity score (65) is above average and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile (11 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 12 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Megan Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 42.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (65, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Megan 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 (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 3.4 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) and 5 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%

65.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 9 mapped paths/walkways and 21 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 11 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~960 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m12

Paths/walkways (50 m)9

Sidewalk segments (50 m)21

Transit stops (400 m)11

Estimated entrances6

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.52

Park perimeter960 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 (playground). 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% weightmeasured 75%

53.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 13.5% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~438 m; 18 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.3/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage13.5%

Canopy area0.46 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)438 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon18

Tree density5.3 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)57.1

Sample points used215

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

61.3 / 100

121 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 121 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.4 m (~2 floors); 12.6 buildings per 100 m of 960 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m121

Buildings within 50 m121

Avg edge height5.4 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building7.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)121

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density12.60 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter960 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: Kingston Road, parking_lot. 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 (1 types · 1 records)

playground

Nearby active-edge features (15)

highway — Kingston Road27 m
parking lot28 m
restaurant — Domino's52 m
parking lot84 m
transit stop — Kingston Rd at Beechgrove Dr86 m
highway — Kingston Road87 m
highway — Kingston Road93 m
parking lot123 m
highway — Kingston Road124 m
highway — Kingston Road143 m
parking lot160 m
parking lot187 m
parking lot197 m
parking lot198 m
transit stop — Fern Meadow Road198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
56th
Edge activation
44th
Connectivity
82th
Amenity diversity
80th
Natural comfort
67th
Enclosure
41th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Keelesdale ParkRavine / Naturalized Park30
Langholm ParkNeighbourhood Park38
Windwood ParkParkette40
Maurice J. Breen ParkWaterfront Park32
Madelaine ParkCorridor / Linear Park37

Most opposite parks

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

Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54

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 Megan 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.

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.
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.