Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Military Cemetery — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Niagara (82)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Military Cemetery

Parkette, near the bottom of the city overall (score 25, rank ~11th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

Military Cemetery scores 24.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.74 ha

Vitality Score
25/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
24.7 / 100
Citywide
11th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
7th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
-11
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 25 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 Diversity0 · p49
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity66 · p84
+3.2
Natural Comfort41 · p38
-1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park54 · p18
+0.4

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

Military Cemetery works because its connectivity score (66) is above average (17 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Military Cemetery is held back by enclosure (54, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (66, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Military Cemetery is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (66) significantly outpaces natural comfort (41) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • 7 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy — passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -11; cohort: small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (7431 m²) with strong building frontage (4.2 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 13 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
66.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 17 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~358 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)17
Sidewalk segments (50 m)5
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.40
Park perimeter358 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%
40.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 3.8% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~564 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage3.8%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)564 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)23.5
Sample points used52

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
53.8 / 100

15 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 1 low-rise, 7 tower); avg edge height 49.7 m (~17 floors); 4.2 buildings per 100 m of 358 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges dominated by towers; 7 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m15
Buildings within 50 m15
Avg edge height49.7 m (~17 floors)
Tallest edge building120.3 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)1
Towers (≥ 13 floors)7
Frontage density4.19 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge47%
Tower share of edge47%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter358 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: rail, Oakville Subdivision, rail, Oakville Subdivision, rail, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision, Oakville Subdivision. 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 (42)

  • rail — Oakville Subdivision12 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision16 m
  • rail22 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision24 m
  • rail30 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision41 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision43 m
  • rail45 m
  • parking lot70 m
  • parking lot79 m
  • rail82 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision91 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision95 m
  • retail — Wine Rack109 m
  • cafe — Starbucks110 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision111 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot117 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision122 m
  • restaurant — Forest Hill Farmhouse122 m
  • transit stop — Fleet Street128 m
  • highway — Gardiner Expressway129 m
  • transit stop — Fleet Street143 m
  • retail — Vent Blow Dry Bar158 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision159 m
  • parking lot162 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision163 m
  • rail163 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision164 m
  • highway — Gardiner Expressway168 m
  • transit stop — Strachan Avenue171 m
  • transit stop — Manitoba Dr at Strachan Ave West Side172 m
  • transit stop — Fleet St at Strachan Ave173 m
  • transit stop — Strachan Avenue174 m
  • transit stop — Fleet St at Fort York Blvd West Side175 m
  • rail — Oakville Subdivision179 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor181 m
  • rail — Western Lead183 m
  • rail — Union Station Rail Corridor184 m
  • parking lot188 m
  • transit stop — Fleet Street193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMilitary Cemetery

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    11th
  • Edge activation
    44th
  • Connectivity
    84th
  • Amenity diversity
    49th
  • Natural comfort
    38th
  • Enclosure
    18th

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 Military 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.

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.