Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Regent Park, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Regent Park (72)confidence moderate

Regent Park

Other, one of the city's strongest overall (score 52, rank ~97th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Sajedur Rahman via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Regent Park scores 52 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (20.4). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 1.75 ha

Vitality Score
52/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
52.0 / 100
Citywide
97th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
28
median in medium Other (n=60)
Performance gap
+24
raw − expected · context confidence high
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.
Regent 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 52 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 Activation20 · p78
-7.4
Connectivity79 · p98
+5.8
Amenity Diversity28 · p93
-4.3
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort69 · p82
+2.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p49
+1.3

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

Regent Park works because its connectivity score (79) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (28) is also top decile (27 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 14 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Regent 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 connectivity (79, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Regent 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 (63) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 20): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 52 versus an expected 28 for similar parks (medium Other) (gap +24).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (1.8 ha, 3 amenity types, frontage 7.3/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
20.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (restaurant, cafe, community, retail, transit_stop) and 6 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%
79.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 29 mapped paths/walkways and 34 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 27 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 8 estimated access points across ~558 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m14
Paths/walkways (50 m)29
Sidewalk segments (50 m)34
Transit stops (400 m)27
Estimated entrances8
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.97
Park perimeter558 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 (dog_area, 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%
68.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~70.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~535 m; 201 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (114.6/ha). Reading: well-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)535 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon201
Tree density114.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used121

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
62.8 / 100

41 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 17 low-rise, 14 tower); avg edge height 35.6 m (~12 floors); 7.3 buildings per 100 m of 558 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 14 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m41
Buildings within 50 m41
Avg edge height35.6 m (~12 floors)
Tallest edge building98.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)17
Towers (≥ 13 floors)14
Frontage density7.34 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge24%
Tower share of edge34%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter558 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 (3 types · 3 records)

  • dog area
  • playground
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (34)

  • transit stop: Sumach Street26 m
  • retail: Purple Factory28 m
  • community: Daniels Spectrum33 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street35 m
  • parking lot39 m
  • retail: Rogers40 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street41 m
  • restaurant: Cafe Zuzu44 m
  • restaurant: Wendy's48 m
  • parking lot59 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street59 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons68 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • restaurant: Subway73 m
  • parking lot80 m
  • parking lot83 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes97 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • retail: Wine Rack99 m
  • restaurant: Liberty Pizza112 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • retail: Circle K137 m
  • cafe: Le Beau139 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street152 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street153 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street157 m
  • retail: Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel162 m
  • retail: J & D Mart164 m
  • retail: Jay's Garden167 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street168 m
  • restaurant: Freddy's Greek184 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureRegent 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
    97th
  • Edge activation
    78th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    93th
  • Natural comfort
    82th
  • Enclosure
    49th

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 Regent 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.