Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)West Hill (136)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

St. Margarets Parkette

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~64th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: connectivity.

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

St. Margarets Parkette scores 37.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.39 ha

Vitality Score

37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

37.3 / 100

Citywide

65th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

72nd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Parkette (n=218)

Performance gap

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 37 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 Activation9 · p69

-10.3

Amenity Diversity0 · p37

-10.0

Natural Comfort77 · p89

+4.0

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Connectivity38 · p32

-2.3

Enclosure / Eyes on Park70 · p69

+2.0

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

St. Margarets Parkette works because its natural comfort score (77) is in the top tier and its enclosure (70) is also above-average (57% tree canopy provides real shade).

What limits this park

St. Margarets Parkette is held back by connectivity (38, below-average).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (77, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

St. Margarets Parkette is an ecological retreat. The urban-vitality numbers are low because the park exists outside the everyday city — that's the point of it.

Tradeoffs

Natural comfort (77) significantly outpaces connectivity (38) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.
The park is enclosed by buildings (70) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 9) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (3871 m²) with strong building frontage (7.3 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

9.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 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%

38.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~247 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)5

Transit stops (400 m)10

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.41

Park perimeter247 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%

76.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 57.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~637 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.0/ha). Reading: well-shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage57.1%

Canopy area0.22 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)637 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon5

Tree density5.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)98.5

Sample points used28

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

70.1 / 100

18 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 17 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.4 m (~3 floors); 7.3 buildings per 100 m of 247 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 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m18

Buildings within 50 m18

Avg edge height8.4 m (~3 floors)

Tallest edge building28.5 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)17

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.29 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge6%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter247 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (27)

transit stop — Opposite 4125 Lawrence Avenue East2 m
parking lot26 m
transit stop — 4121 Lawrence Avenue East54 m
parking lot61 m
parking lot102 m
parking lot102 m
parking lot136 m
restaurant — Eggsmart139 m
parking lot142 m
transit stop — Lawrence Avenue East142 m
parking lot148 m
highway — Kingston Road149 m
restaurant — Harvey's151 m
transit stop — Kingston Road154 m
highway — Kingston Road157 m
highway — Kingston Road161 m
parking lot165 m
restaurant — Swiss Chalet165 m
restaurant — Big Bite Burrito177 m
retail — National Thrift179 m
retail182 m
transit stop — Poplar Road183 m
parking lot184 m
parking lot190 m
retail — Action Honda191 m
highway — Kingston Road193 m
parking lot198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
64th
Edge activation
69th
Connectivity
32th
Amenity diversity
37th
Natural comfort
89th
Enclosure
69th

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.

ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Sonya'S ParkUrban Plaza60

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 St. Margarets Parkettematters. 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.
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

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.