Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Alexandra Park, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Kensington-Chinatown (78)confidence moderate

Alexandra Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 59, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Glenn Dickler via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Alexandra Park scores 58.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: natural comfort (38.1). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 2.76 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldBasketballSkateparkPoolIce rink
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterPicnic areaBenches
Vitality Score
59/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
58.5 / 100
Citywide
99th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=113)
Performance gap
+20
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.
Alexandra 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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 59 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
Connectivity81 · p99
+6.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park81 · p86
+3.1
Natural Comfort38 · p32
-1.8
Edge Activation43 · p94
-1.7
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Amenity Diversity56 · p99
+1.2

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

Alexandra Park works because its connectivity score (81) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (56) is also top decile (24 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 23 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Alexandra Park is held back by natural comfort (38, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (81, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (81) significantly outpaces natural comfort (38): 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 59 versus an expected 38 for similar parks (medium Athletic / Recreation Park) (gap +20).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, skatepark, ice_rink, pool, sports_field). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (2.8 ha, framed by 23 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
43.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 30 active uses (retail, transit_stop, community, cafe, restaurant, school) and 5 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%
81.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 35 mapped paths/walkways and 28 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 23 street intersections within 100 m; 24 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 12 estimated access points across ~682 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m12
Intersections within 100 m23
Paths/walkways (50 m)35
Sidewalk segments (50 m)28
Transit stops (400 m)24
Estimated entrances12
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.76
Park perimeter682 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
56.0 / 100

10 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, picnic, playground, skatepark, washroom, bench, …). 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% weightinferred 30%
38.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.1% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 24 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.7/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon24
Tree density8.7 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used193

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
80.7 / 100

87 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (23 mid-rise, 64 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 12.8 buildings per 100 m of 682 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 23 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m87
Buildings within 50 m87
Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building16.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)23
Low-rise (< 3 floors)64
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density12.76 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge26%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter682 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, 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 (10 types · 29 records)

  • basketball
  • picnic
  • playground
  • skatepark
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • ice rink
  • pool
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (77)

  • cafe: Petit Nuage2 m
  • retail: Qamar Suo3 m
  • restaurant: Migustoes3 m
  • retail: Dreamtech3 m
  • parking lot9 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • restaurant: Stuffed29 m
  • restaurant31 m
  • retail33 m
  • restaurant: Buddha's Vegan Restaurant36 m
  • restaurant: Bathurst Local39 m
  • community: Scadding Court Community Centre41 m
  • cafe: Bailey's Cafe43 m
  • retail: Hair by Design48 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • parking lot50 m
  • restaurant: Nom Nom Nom Poutine60 m
  • restaurant: Kanto by Tita Flips62 m
  • restaurant: Suzume66 m
  • restaurant: Thai Street Food68 m
  • retail: Portugal Auto Garage68 m
  • restaurant: Ethiopian70 m
  • restaurant: Gushi Japanese Street Food72 m
  • transit stop: Robinson Street74 m
  • transit stop: Robinson Street75 m
  • restaurant: Original Taste75 m
  • restaurant: little Banh Mi77 m
  • parking lot: Impark82 m
  • community: Toronto Public Library - Sanderson86 m
  • school: Downtown Vocal Music Academy of Toronto88 m
  • retail: Carlton Convenience - Variety & Gifts90 m
  • retail: Paranoid Custom Apparel91 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street West93 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street West95 m
  • retail: Starling Automotive Inc.99 m
  • parking lot103 m
  • restaurant: McDonald's105 m
  • transit stop: Denison Avenue109 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • restaurant: Greens Vegetarian Restaurant114 m
  • restaurant: ami-no119 m
  • transit stop: Bathurst Street122 m
  • transit stop: Carr Street124 m
  • restaurant: Japanese Restaurant124 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • transit stop: Carr Street124 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • transit stop: Bathurst Street125 m
  • restaurant: Falafel127 m
  • retail: New Fashion Shop128 m
  • restaurant: Montauk Bar132 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street West135 m
  • transit stop: Dundas Street West136 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons139 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • transit stop: Denison Avenue140 m
  • restaurant: Subway145 m
  • restaurant: chop chop148 m
  • retail: Sweet Hart Kitchen148 m
  • cafe: Cha Thai Cafe149 m
  • retail: Kensington Automotive150 m
  • cafe: Milky’s156 m
  • retail: Rose Garden Flowers & Gift159 m
  • retail: Irene's Flowers160 m
  • retail: E Zhan Bubble Tea Internet Café164 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • retail: Dr. Marianne Chow166 m
  • restaurant: Dundas Shawarma169 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes173 m
  • restaurant: Carolina186 m
  • retail: HIDE Boutique186 m
  • restaurant: Hard Luck190 m
  • restaurant: Stelvio191 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • retail: King Spic & Span Laundromat Inc.198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureAlexandra 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
    94th
  • Connectivity
    99th
  • Amenity diversity
    99th
  • Natural comfort
    32th
  • Enclosure
    86th

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 Alexandra 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.