Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
St. Patricks Square, site photograph
Back to map
Civic Squarecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Kensington-Chinatown (78)confidence moderate

St. Patricks Square

Civic Square, one of the city's strongest overall (score 55, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

St. Patricks Square scores 54.7 / 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 forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 0.07 ha

Vitality Score
55/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
54.7 / 100
Citywide
98th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Civic Square
93rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in pocket Civic Square (n=22)
Performance gap
+18
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 55 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 · p41
-10.0
Connectivity78 · p98
+5.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park96 · p99
+4.6
Natural Comfort41 · p39
-1.4
Edge Activation53 · p97
+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

St. Patricks Square works because its enclosure score (96) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (78) is also top decile (32 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

St. Patricks Square 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 enclosure (96, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (78) significantly outpaces natural comfort (41): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 55 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (pocket Civic Square) (gap +18).

Typology classification

confidence 90%
Civic Squarealso reads as Urban Plaza

Classified as Civic Square: name flags as civic square + 49 buildings frame the edge. Secondary read: Urban Plaza (737 m², paved (0% canopy), 39.1 buildings/100 m).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
53.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 35 active uses (retail, restaurant, transit_stop, cafe) and 4 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%
78.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 24 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~125 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m10
Intersections within 100 m24
Paths/walkways (50 m)14
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter7.99
Park perimeter125 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 36%
41.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~8.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1339 m; 12 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (12.0/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)1,339 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon12
Tree density12.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used13

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
96.2 / 100

49 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (32 mid-rise, 14 low-rise, 3 tower); avg edge height 17.2 m (~6 floors); 39.1 buildings per 100 m of 125 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 3 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 32 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m49
Buildings within 50 m49
Avg edge height17.2 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building43.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)32
Low-rise (< 3 floors)14
Towers (≥ 13 floors)3
Frontage density39.15 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge65%
Tower share of edge6%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter125 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • retail: Umbra35 m
  • retail: New Tribe Tattooing and Piercings37 m
  • retail: Get Me Fly39 m
  • restaurant: Salad King40 m
  • retail: Ye Perfect Nail & Spa40 m
  • restaurant: Naan Kabob41 m
  • retail: Queen Dry Cleaners41 m
  • restaurant: Queen Street Warehouse42 m
  • restaurant: Oh My Gyro!43 m
  • retail: June Hairdresser On Fire45 m
  • restaurant: Alpha’s Shawarma46 m
  • retail: Dragon Vape47 m
  • retail: BMV Books49 m
  • restaurant: German Doner Kebab51 m
  • retail: Tribal Rhythm52 m
  • retail: New You Spa53 m
  • retail: Aux Merveilleux54 m
  • cafe: Nord Lyon Cafe56 m
  • transit stop: John Street63 m
  • cafe: Thor Espresso64 m
  • transit stop: Stephanie Street65 m
  • cafe: Tuck Shop Provisions67 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • retail: Star Vape72 m
  • parking lot77 m
  • retail: Gardenview Convenience78 m
  • retail: OD82 m
  • restaurant: Yakiniku Legend82 m
  • transit stop: John Street85 m
  • restaurant: Holy Cow Steakhouse86 m
  • retail: Stag Shop86 m
  • parking lot: MuchMusic/CTV Parking89 m
  • retail: Civello Aveda90 m
  • retail: Opteaq Eyecare91 m
  • cafe: Mizzica Cafe92 m
  • parking lot93 m
  • restaurant: Korean Grill House94 m
  • retail: Rendez Vous95 m
  • retail: Scarpino97 m
  • restaurant: Subway105 m
  • restaurant: Aristos108 m
  • restaurant: Queen Mother Cafe109 m
  • retail: Man Stop Barber111 m
  • retail: OCAD U Copy & Print Services112 m
  • retail: Clearly112 m
  • restaurant: Touhenboku Ramen113 m
  • restaurant: Rudy115 m
  • parking lot116 m
  • restaurant: The Friar and Firkin116 m
  • retail: Change117 m
  • restaurant: Niuda117 m
  • retail: Toni & Guy118 m
  • restaurant: The Bombay119 m
  • restaurant: Shah’s Halal Food121 m
  • retail: The Hunny Pot122 m
  • restaurant: Atomy124 m
  • retail: St. Patrick's Mini Market124 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons124 m
  • restaurant: Ikkousha Ramen124 m
  • restaurant: Chipotle127 m
  • restaurant: Little India128 m
  • restaurant: Daily Press Juicery129 m
  • restaurant: Ema-Tei Authentic Japanese Food130 m
  • retail: So Hip131 m
  • retail: Groovy132 m
  • retail133 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Time134 m
  • retail: Hunny Pot Cannabis135 m
  • restaurant: Ikkousha Ramen140 m
  • restaurant: The Sandwich Table140 m
  • retail: Kintaro Tattoo144 m
  • restaurant: Chick Queen144 m
  • retail: Cori145 m
  • cafe: HotBlack Coffee147 m
  • cafe: Wonder Pet Cafe152 m
  • parking lot157 m
  • retail: LCBO157 m
  • restaurant: Carlotta Bar158 m
  • restaurant: The Fifth Gastropub161 m
  • restaurant: The Rex Jazz & Blues Bar161 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSt. Patricks Square
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
    97th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    41th
  • Natural comfort
    39th
  • Enclosure
    99th

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.

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 St. Patricks Squarematters. 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.

  • 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.