Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Maple Claire Park, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Junction Area (90)confidence moderate

Maple Claire Park

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~92th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: amenity diversity.

Photo by Francisco Naranjo via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Maple Claire Park scores 47.5 / 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.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.23 ha

Vitality Score
48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
47.5 / 100
Citywide
93rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Urban Plaza
88th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)
Performance gap
+11
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Maple Claire Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Explain this score

Where did the 48 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 · p33
-10.0
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park71 · p70
+2.1
Edge Activation54 · p97
+0.9
Natural Comfort44 · p46
-0.9
Connectivity52 · p59
+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

Maple Claire Park works because its edge activation score (54) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (71) is also above-average (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Maple Claire Park is held back by amenity diversity (0, below-average).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (54, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Maple Claire Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+11 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2334 m², paved (0% canopy), 8.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
53.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
52.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 9 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~239 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)9
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.68
Park perimeter239 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% weightinferred 36%
44.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~8.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~320 m; 12 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (12.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)320 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon12
Tree density12.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
70.5 / 100

19 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 17 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.2 m (~2 floors); 8.0 buildings per 100 m of 239 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m19
Buildings within 50 m19
Avg edge height7.2 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building14.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)17
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density7.96 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge11%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter239 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 (43)

  • restaurant: Victory's Kitchen32 m
  • transit stop: Gunn's Loop55 m
  • transit stop: Gunn's Loop66 m
  • restaurant: Shoeless Joe's80 m
  • retail: Nations Fresh Foods82 m
  • transit stop: Gunn's Road90 m
  • retail: C Wave Optical97 m
  • transit stop: Old Stock Yards102 m
  • retail: Telus/Koodo106 m
  • retail: Walking on a Cloud111 m
  • retail: Zwilling113 m
  • retail: Marry Me Mochi115 m
  • retail: La Vie en Rose115 m
  • retail: Popeye's Supplements120 m
  • retail: The Children's Place122 m
  • retail: Ardene123 m
  • transit stop: Old Stock Yards124 m
  • retail: The Shoe Company125 m
  • retail: Canadian Tire129 m
  • retail: Snuggle Bugz131 m
  • retail: Roots146 m
  • restaurant: Mr. Puff’s Dessert Bar153 m
  • restaurant: A&W160 m
  • retail: Sally Beauty166 m
  • retail: Carter's OshKosh167 m
  • retail: Bell173 m
  • parking lot: Garage South173 m
  • restaurant: Panda Express174 m
  • retail: First Choice HairCutters175 m
  • retail: Men Zone Barbershop179 m
  • restaurant: Tahini’s180 m
  • retail: Winners181 m
  • retail: Nails for You184 m
  • restaurant: Halibut House185 m
  • retail: Marshalls185 m
  • restaurant: Sunset Grill188 m
  • restaurant: Firehouse Subs190 m
  • restaurant: Mary Brown's192 m
  • parking lot192 m
  • cafe: Chatime193 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons197 m
  • retail: Pet Valu199 m
  • restaurant: Philthy Philly's200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMaple Claire Park
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    92th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    59th
  • Amenity diversity
    33th
  • Natural comfort
    46th
  • Enclosure
    70th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score61 / 100
60.8 / 100

p82 citywide · p93 within Urban Plaza

Volume (saturated)25
Density / ha87
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
162
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.81 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Maple Claire 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.

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
70%

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

real Toronto data
  • 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.