Urban Plazacluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksCabbagetown-South St.James Town (71)confidence moderate

Montague Parkette

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~55th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Montague Parkette scores 35.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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 · 0.14 ha

Vitality Score

35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

35.1 / 100

Citywide

55th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Urban Plaza

40th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)

Performance gap

-1

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Loading map…

Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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 · p60

-10.0

Edge Activation22 · p79

-7.1

Natural Comfort23 · p1

-4.1

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p88

+3.3

Connectivity46 · p47

-0.8

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

Montague Parkette works because its enclosure score (83) is in the top tier and its edge activation (22) is also top quartile (36 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Montague Parkette is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Montague Parkette 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 22): frame without animation.
20 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1354 m², paved (0% canopy), 33.2 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

21.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (retail, restaurant) and 3 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

20% weightmeasured 85%

46.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 3 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~208 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2

Intersections within 100 m3

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)3

Transit stops (400 m)20

Estimated entrances1

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.96

Park perimeter208 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 24%

22.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1264 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)1,264 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0

Sample points used9

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

82.7 / 100

69 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (36 mid-rise, 13 low-rise, 20 tower); avg edge height 27.8 m (~9 floors); 33.2 buildings per 100 m of 208 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 20 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 36 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m69

Buildings within 50 m69

Avg edge height27.8 m (~9 floors)

Tallest edge building89.3 m

Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)36

Low-rise (< 3 floors)13

Towers (≥ 13 floors)20

Frontage density33.19 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge52%

Tower share of edge29%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter208 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

12.0 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

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 (27)

parking lot3 m
parking lot58 m
parking lot66 m
retail72 m
retail: Adina Photo72 m
retail82 m
retail: Little Bee Supermarket84 m
restaurant: Kata Sushi89 m
retail: Greendale Drugs110 m
cafe: Jarvis house bed and breakfast123 m
parking lot126 m
transit stop: Jarvis Street131 m
transit stop: Carlton Street135 m
transit stop: Sherbourne Street145 m
transit stop: Jarvis Street152 m
transit stop159 m
parking lot: Sherbourne162 m
transit stop: Sherbourne Street166 m
cafe: Tim Hortons166 m
transit stop169 m
retail: The Shoe Room173 m
transit stop: Carlton Street173 m
parking lot177 m
restaurant: Madras Curry184 m
retail: Vertie189 m
restaurant: Golden Diner Family Restaurant200 m
retail: J & S Convenience200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

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
55th
Edge activation
79th
Connectivity
47th
Amenity diversity
60th
Natural comfort
1th
Enclosure
88th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Blantyre ParkUrban Plaza35
Bayview ParketteUrban Plaza34
City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza35
Black Creek WatercourseRavine / Naturalized Park36
Alex Murray ParketteUrban Plaza39

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
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 Montague Parkettematters. 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.
Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
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.