Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Lionel Conacher Park, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Yonge-St.Clair (97)confidence moderate

Lionel Conacher Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~82th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Insta Grammatika via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Lionel Conacher Park scores 41.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 0.58 ha

Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
41.9 / 100
Citywide
82nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
52nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)
Performance gap
+0
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.
Lionel Conacher 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 42 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 Activation0 · p46
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Amenity Diversity28 · p95
-4.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p94
+3.8
Natural Comfort42 · p41
-1.2
Connectivity56 · p65
+1.1

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

Lionel Conacher Park works because its amenity diversity score (28) is in the top tier and its enclosure (88) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Lionel Conacher Park doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Lionel Conacher Park 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 (88) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (82nd) but typology rank is more modest (52nd): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 67% of amenity types are athletic (sports_field, tennis). Secondary read: Urban Plaza (5810 m², paved (0% canopy), 20.8 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 8 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
55.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~323 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)13
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.86
Park perimeter323 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, tennis). 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% weightpartial 45%
41.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~842 m; 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.0/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)842 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon11
Tree density11.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used42

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.1 / 100

67 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (31 mid-rise, 36 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.6 m (~3 floors); 20.8 buildings per 100 m of 323 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 31 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m67
Buildings within 50 m67
Avg edge height8.6 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building16.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)31
Low-rise (< 3 floors)36
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density20.76 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge46%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter323 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 (3 types · 3 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (17)

  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision66 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision70 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • parking lot71 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot91 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • retail: Antique Maps130 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • retail: Wooftown168 m
  • retail: Alcorn195 m
  • retail: Debonair Dogs197 m
  • retail: Vert198 m
  • retail: Josephs Hairstyling198 m
  • cafe: Boxcar Social199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureLionel Conacher 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
    82th
  • Edge activation
    46th
  • Connectivity
    65th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    94th

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 score35 / 100
34.7 / 100

p29 citywide · p19 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)4
Density / ha24
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
18
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.96 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 Lionel Conacher 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.

  • 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.
  • 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.