Lisgar Park
Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~91th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by Gordon Su via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Lisgar Park scores 46.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.30 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.
Explain this score
Where did the 47 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
Lisgar Park works because its enclosure score (93) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (41) is also top decile (33 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).
What limits this park
Lisgar Park is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (93, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Lisgar Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- 6 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+8 vs the median in small Urban Plaza).
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 2961 m², paved (0% canopy), 27.0 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 26 active uses (restaurant, retail, cafe, transit_stop) and 5 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~218 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
1 distinct amenity types in the park (playground). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.2% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1391 m; 6 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (6.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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
59 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (33 mid-rise, 20 low-rise, 6 tower); avg edge height 19.3 m (~6 floors); 27.0 buildings per 100 m of 218 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 6 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 33 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. 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
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 (1 types · 1 records)
- playground
Nearby active-edge features (77)
- retail: Am2Pm Express Market19 m
- retail: Glad Day20 m
- parking lot23 m
- retail: Shmata Thrift Store45 m
- parking lot54 m
- retail: Starlight Med Spa54 m
- transit stop: Abell Street58 m
- transit stop: Abell Street59 m
- retail: SJ Tattoo Studio60 m
- restaurant: Subway67 m
- retail68 m
- restaurant: Pizza Pizza69 m
- parking lot70 m
- restaurant: Hello 12373 m
- cafe: The Drake Café73 m
- restaurant: The Burger's Priest75 m
- restaurant: Fat Bastard Burrito76 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision77 m
- restaurant: Queen Star Restaurant77 m
- retail: Birds of North America80 m
- restaurant: Poutini’s House of Poutine82 m
- rail: Galt Subdivision85 m
- restaurant: Death and Taxes86 m
- retail: Mabel’s Bakery & Specialty Foods Inc.90 m
- retail: Craft Ontario90 m
- cafe: Major Treat Coffee92 m
- retail: Town Barber94 m
- retail: Convenience Canada95 m
- retail: INabstracto97 m
- retail: The Makeover Place Inc.97 m
- restaurant: The Dog & Bear Pub98 m
- retail: Free Geek Toronto102 m
- retail: Mani's Toke105 m
- restaurant: Good Son108 m
- restaurant: IKUNE by Après Wine Bar109 m
- transit stop: Dovercourt Road112 m
- restaurant: Nuit Social113 m
- retail: Poppies114 m
- restaurant: Pizzaiolo119 m
- retail120 m
- restaurant: Levetto122 m
- retail: Helen + Hildegard123 m
- retail: Nail Art Bar127 m
- retail127 m
- retail129 m
- parking lot130 m
- restaurant: Nunu132 m
- retail134 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision136 m
- restaurant137 m
- restaurant: Pastalia137 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons141 m
- restaurant: Church142 m
- cafe: Hams Art Market Souk & Cafe143 m
- transit stop: Dovercourt Road144 m
- retail: Aeya Studios150 m
- retail: Dynasty154 m
- retail: Average154 m
- restaurant: Jamil's Chaat House158 m
- retail: Quasi Modo159 m
- restaurant: Bar Piquette163 m
- retail168 m
- parking lot168 m
- retail: Eye Wonder168 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision173 m
- restaurant: Convenience174 m
- retail: Rec + Art History174 m
- retail: Hopeless Romantic176 m
- parking lot179 m
- retail181 m
- retail: Gioia Beauty and Spa188 m
- restaurant: Butter Chicken Roti189 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision190 m
- retail: Monkey Vapes191 m
- retail195 m
- retail: Royal197 m
- restaurant: Liliana199 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality91th
- Edge activation93th
- Connectivity61th
- Amenity diversity80th
- Natural comfort28th
- Enclosure98th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Bright Street PlaygroundUrban Plaza48
- Dane ParketteNeighbourhood Park48
- Northumberland PlaygroundUrban Plaza46
- Sally Bird ParkUrban Plaza45
- Thompson Street ParketteUrban Plaza50
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
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.
p19 citywide · p15 within Urban Plaza
Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 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 Lisgar 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.
- 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
- 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.