Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Macgregor Playground, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Dufferin Grove (83)confidence moderate

Macgregor Playground

Athletic / Recreation Park, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by T G via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Macgregor Playground scores 47.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (16). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (30). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 1.47 ha

Vitality Score
48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
47.8 / 100
Citywide
93rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
76th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=68)
Performance gap
+6
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.
Macgregor Playground, 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
Edge Activation16 · p74
-8.5
Connectivity68 · p88
+3.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p88
+3.3
Amenity Diversity35 · p98
-3.1
Border Vacuum Risk30 (risk)
+2.0
Natural Comfort53 · p66
+0.5

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

Macgregor Playground works because its amenity diversity score (35) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (68) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Macgregor Playground's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 30.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (35, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Macgregor Playground 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 (83) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 16): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its athletic / recreation park typology (+6 vs the median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, sports_field). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (1.5 ha, framed by 17 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
16.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 4 active uses (transit_stop, school, retail) and 3 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%
68.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 9 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~520 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)9
Sidewalk segments (50 m)17
Transit stops (400 m)21
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.35
Park perimeter520 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, playground, sports_field, washroom). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
53.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~20.5% effective canopy (5.9% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1458 m; 43 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (29.3/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 coverage5.9%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,458 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon43
Tree density29.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)32.3
Sample points used102

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
82.6 / 100

77 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (17 mid-rise, 60 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.3 m (~3 floors); 14.8 buildings per 100 m of 520 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 17 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m77
Buildings within 50 m77
Avg edge height8.3 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building27.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)17
Low-rise (< 3 floors)60
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density14.82 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge22%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter520 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
30.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Newmarket Subdivision. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that 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 (4 types · 4 records)

  • basketball
  • playground
  • sports field
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (21)

  • rail: Newmarket Subdivision9 m
  • transit stop: Whytock Avenue15 m
  • parking lot16 m
  • transit stop: Whytock Avenue22 m
  • school: La passerelle secondaire23 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • retail: Anony Inc96 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision134 m
  • retail: House of Anansi Press136 m
  • retail: Coffee By Joy136 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision143 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision146 m
  • restaurant: Terroni Sterling149 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • parking lot172 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision183 m
  • parking lot190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMacgregor Playground
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
    93th
  • Edge activation
    74th
  • Connectivity
    88th
  • Amenity diversity
    98th
  • Natural comfort
    66th
  • Enclosure
    88th

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 score65 / 100
65.2 / 100

p86 citywide · p85 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)42
Density / ha71
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
363
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.99 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 Macgregor Playgroundmatters. 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.

  • 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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

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.