Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Perth Square Park, site photograph
Back to map
Civic Squarecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Dovercourt-Wallace Emerson-Junction (93)confidence moderate

Perth Square Park

Civic Square, one of the city's strongest overall (score 56, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Anne Gorley via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Perth Square Park scores 55.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 0.73 ha

Vitality Score
56/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
55.6 / 100
Citywide
99th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Civic Square
95th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Civic Square (n=23)
Performance gap
+14
raw − expected · context confidence medium
strong 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.
Perth Square 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 56 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 Diversity21 · p87
-5.8
Connectivity73 · p94
+4.7
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park75 · p76
+2.5
Natural Comfort55 · p68
+0.7
Edge Activation49 · p96
-0.2

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

Perth Square Park works because its edge activation score (49) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (73) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Perth Square 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 edge activation (49, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 56 versus an expected 42 for similar parks (small Civic Square) (gap +14).

Typology classification

confidence 90%
Civic Square

Classified as Civic Square: name flags as civic square + 91 buildings frame the edge

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
49.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (restaurant, retail) and 1 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%
73.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 12 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 20 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~342 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m11
Paths/walkways (50 m)12
Sidewalk segments (50 m)17
Transit stops (400 m)20
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.05
Park perimeter342 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, 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% weightpartial 45%
54.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~28.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1366 m; 41 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (41.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. 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)1,366 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon41
Tree density41.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used51

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
74.6 / 100

91 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 88 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 26.6 buildings per 100 m of 342 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 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m91
Buildings within 50 m91
Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)88
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density26.64 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge3%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter342 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 (2 types · 2 records)

  • playground
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (35)

  • parking lot35 m
  • restaurant: Taqueria Vegana93 m
  • restaurant: Thai Lime93 m
  • restaurant: Souvlaki Emporium93 m
  • restaurant: Koji Sushi93 m
  • restaurant: Domino's93 m
  • retail: Stay Home Furnishings93 m
  • retail: Friends Salon Nail & Spa94 m
  • restaurant: Gaivota Sports Bar94 m
  • transit stop: Symington Ave at Antler St103 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • restaurant: Columbian Street Food107 m
  • retail113 m
  • transit stop: Dupont St at Perth Ave114 m
  • transit stop: Symington Ave at Antler St116 m
  • restaurant: Lucia122 m
  • transit stop: Dupont St at Franklin Ave132 m
  • retail: Casa Blanca Hairstyling For Men & Women134 m
  • retail: 100% SILK Shop + Gallery134 m
  • restaurant: Gus Tacos134 m
  • restaurant: Dotty's141 m
  • retail142 m
  • transit stop: Dupont St at Symington Ave142 m
  • retail: Pictus Goods146 m
  • retail150 m
  • transit stop: Dupont Street154 m
  • restaurant: Mattachioni158 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • transit stop: Symington Ave at Dupont St167 m
  • transit stop: Dupont St at Symington Ave178 m
  • transit stop: Dupont St at Edwin Ave180 m
  • parking lot191 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • retail: The Boho Lab196 m
  • cafe: Hale Coffee197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosurePerth Square 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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    94th
  • Amenity diversity
    87th
  • Natural comfort
    68th
  • Enclosure
    76th

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.

Visitor signal score60 / 100
60.4 / 100

p81 citywide · p45 within Civic Square

Volume (saturated)29
Density / ha73
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
199
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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 Perth Square 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.

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.