Earlscourt Park
Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 51, rank ~96th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Earlscourt Park scores 51.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. 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 · 0.04 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 51 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
- Connectivity (62) significantly outpaces natural comfort (31) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 51 versus an expected 36 for similar parks (pocket Urban Plaza) (gap +15).
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 400 m², paved (0% canopy), 27.8 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 15 active uses (restaurant, community, transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 1 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~119 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: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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
33 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 27 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.5 m (~3 floors); 27.8 buildings per 100 m of 119 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 6 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.
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 (35)
- transit stop — St Clair Avenue West5 m
- cafe — La Paloma13 m
- cafe — Poop-A-Licious18 m
- transit stop — Lansdowne20 m
- restaurant — Poop Cafe22 m
- restaurant — Rain Sushi30 m
- restaurant — Agio Ristorante33 m
- restaurant — 241 Pizza40 m
- transit stop — Lansdowne Avenue46 m
- community — Joseph J. Piccininni Community Centre49 m
- transit stop — St Clair Avenue West60 m
- restaurant — Ti Carlo's Bar76 m
- parking lot79 m
- retail — Verdi87 m
- transit stop — Lansdowne96 m
- restaurant — Cafe 51297 m
- retail — VK Optical109 m
- parking lot112 m
- retail — Ital Record & Sport113 m
- parking lot121 m
- restaurant — Sway124 m
- restaurant — Don Quixote134 m
- restaurant — Castelo Sports Bar140 m
- retail — Jasmine146 m
- retail — Astro Meats146 m
- retail — Ontario Fashion Textiles161 m
- retail — Tanyas169 m
- restaurant — Frank's Pizza House171 m
- cafe — Settemila Cafe177 m
- parking lot177 m
- retail179 m
- retail — Freedom Mobile182 m
- cafe184 m
- restaurant — La Bruschetta192 m
- retail — Praia de Mira192 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality96th
- Edge activation98th
- Connectivity77th
- Amenity diversity19th
- Natural comfort14th
- Enclosure90th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Lakeview Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza52
- Prescott ParketteUrban Plaza48
- Pape Avenue CemeteryUrban Plaza50
- Hto Park WestUrban Plaza49
- Toronto Sculpture GardenUrban Plaza52
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
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 Earlscourt 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.
- 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 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.