Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
St. Paul'S Anglican Church Cemetery — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksL'Amoreaux (117)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

St. Paul'S Anglican Church Cemetery

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~63th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

St. Paul'S Anglican Church Cemetery scores 37 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.40 ha

Vitality Score
37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
37.0 / 100
Citywide
63rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
87th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
24
median in small Other (n=41)
Performance gap
+13
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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
Amenity Diversity0 · p19
-10.0
Edge Activation16 · p74
-8.5
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park70 · p68
+2.0
Connectivity46 · p46
-0.9
Natural Comfort46 · p52
-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

St. Paul'S Anglican Church Cemetery works because its edge activation score (16) is above average and its enclosure (70) is also above-average.

What limits this park

St. Paul'S Anglican Church 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

St. Paul'S Anglican Church 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 (70) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 16) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 37 versus an expected 24 for similar parks (small Other) (gap +13).
  • Although its citywide rank is low (63rd), it ranks highly among similar others (87th) — 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 (0.4 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 2.7/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
16.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop) and 3 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%
45.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~261 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2
Intersections within 100 m1
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.77
Park perimeter261 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%
46.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 6.9% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~280 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.0/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 coverage6.9%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)280 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density2.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)36.2
Sample points used29

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
69.8 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 0 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 24.9 m (~8 floors); 2.7 buildings per 100 m of 261 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges lean tall but still framed; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m7
Buildings within 50 m7
Avg edge height24.9 m (~8 floors)
Tallest edge building39.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.68 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge100%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)11%
Park perimeter261 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 (18)

  • transit stop — Finch Avenue at Warden Avenue4 m
  • transit stop — Warden Avenue at Finch Avenue39 m
  • transit stop — Warden Avenue at Finch Avenue East43 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • transit stop — Finch Avenue at Warden Avenue66 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • parking lot105 m
  • parking lot106 m
  • transit stop — 2770 Warden Avenue114 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • retail — Stitches154 m
  • transit stop — Warden Avenue at Apartments161 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • retail — Metro173 m
  • parking lot175 m
  • parking lot192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSt. Paul'S Anglican Church Cemetery

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    63th
  • Edge activation
    74th
  • Connectivity
    46th
  • Amenity diversity
    19th
  • Natural comfort
    52th
  • Enclosure
    68th

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 St. Paul'S Anglican Church 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.