St. James Cemetery
Ravine / Naturalized Park, middle of the pack overall (score 39, rank ~69th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
St. James Cemetery scores 38.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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.
Area · 12.03 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 39 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- The park is enclosed by buildings (83) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
- Strong physical conditions (score 39) but weak observed activity signals (8) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
- High connectivity (75) coexists with little programming evidence — easy to reach, but no recurring civic life detected.
Typology classification
Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 42% ravine overlap, 2% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (12.0 ha, framed by 43 mid-rise vs 11 towers).
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 22 active uses (transit_stop, retail, cafe, restaurant, community) and 10 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 57 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 52 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~1,677 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 2.0% estimated tree canopy; 41.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~452 m; 36 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
113 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (43 mid-rise, 59 low-rise, 11 tower); avg edge height 14.7 m (~5 floors); 6.7 buildings per 100 m of 1,677 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 11 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 43 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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
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 (77)
- transit stop — St James Avenue1 m
- transit stop — Wellesley Street East2 m
- transit stop — Howard Street15 m
- transit stop — St James Avenue20 m
- transit stop — Howard Street20 m
- restaurant — BBQ Chicken Factory25 m
- parking lot34 m
- parking lot40 m
- transit stop — Wellesley Street East50 m
- retail — Parliament Smoke & Gift52 m
- restaurant — Rashnaa54 m
- parking lot55 m
- retail — Jamestown Milk55 m
- highway — Bloor Street East56 m
- highway — Bloor Street East57 m
- retail — Yaris Super Store58 m
- parking lot59 m
- cafe — KAVA COFFE HOUSE59 m
- transit stop — Wellesley Street East59 m
- parking lot61 m
- parking lot67 m
- retail — La Vape68 m
- transit stop — Parliament Street68 m
- parking lot68 m
- restaurant — Pizza Pizza68 m
- restaurant — Cranberries Restaurant70 m
- retail — Alemey Beauty Supply78 m
- retail — Wan2 supermarket80 m
- highway — Bloor Street East83 m
- restaurant — Tender Trap84 m
- community — The Filipino Centre Toronto85 m
- retail — FTJ Co Fine Jewellery99 m
- retail — Rose Park Tuck Shop103 m
- highway — Bloor Street East105 m
- retail — Ambal Trading110 m
- parking lot113 m
- retail — The Bestiary115 m
- retail — Absolute Bakery & Cafe116 m
- restaurant — Shalom120 m
- restaurant — Falacha Fusion121 m
- restaurant — Momo Ghar121 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line122 m
- restaurant — Poopathy Mess125 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line126 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line127 m
- retail — Kalaimakal Convenience127 m
- highway — Bloor Street East127 m
- restaurant — L'avenue on Parliament129 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line130 m
- restaurant — F'Amelia132 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line141 m
- transit stop — Bloor Street144 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line145 m
- restaurant — Butter Chicken Factory146 m
- parking lot149 m
- parking lot150 m
- parking lot153 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons158 m
- transit stop — Castle Frank162 m
- parking lot164 m
- highway — Bloor Street East164 m
- transit stop — Castle Frank173 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line173 m
- parking lot176 m
- transit stop — Castle Frank176 m
- rail — Bloor-Danforth Line176 m
- retail — Harla Spice Market176 m
- retail — T & B Hair Salon176 m
- community — Rose Avenue Community Centre176 m
- retail — Philippine Variety Store177 m
- restaurant — Luis Hernandez Restaurant178 m
- restaurant — Alice's Place182 m
- transit stop — Castle Frank Road184 m
- retail — Powder Bride191 m
- retail — Blooming Flower Bar191 m
- highway — Bloor Street East195 m
- rail — Rosedale Siding198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality69th
- Edge activation53th
- Connectivity95th
- Amenity diversity59th
- Natural comfort62th
- Enclosure88th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Duplex ParketteRavine / Naturalized Park32
- St. John'S Norway CemeteryRavine / Naturalized Park30
- East York Hydro Green SpaceCorridor / Linear Park33
- Beaty Boulevard ParketteCorridor / Linear Park38
- Garrison Creek ParkRavine / Naturalized Park31
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Toronto Islands - Island ParkWaterfront Park52
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 4.9/100; cycling/trail 8.1/100. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: counters.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of St. James 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.
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.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
- Parks & Recreation FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.