Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Coleman Park, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)East End-Danforth (62)confidence moderate

Coleman Park

Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 53, rank ~96th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by n fik via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Coleman Park scores 53.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (32.2). 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 · 0.50 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundTennisPoolGardenTable tennis
Facilities
Drinking waterPicnic areaBenches
Vitality Score
53/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
53.3 / 100
Citywide
96th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
93rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
Performance gap
+12
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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.
Coleman 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 53 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 Activation32 · p88
-4.4
Border Vacuum Risk18 (risk)
+3.2
Connectivity66 · p85
+3.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park80 · p84
+3.0
Natural Comfort42 · p39
-1.3
Amenity Diversity49 · p97
-0.3

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

Coleman Park works because its amenity diversity score (49) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (32) is also top quartile (8 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Coleman 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 amenity diversity (49, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+12 vs the median in small Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 4994 m², paved (0% canopy), 20.8 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
32.2 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 45 active uses (transit_stop, cafe, restaurant, retail) and 7 dead/hostile uses (rail, highway, 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%
65.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 12 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 32 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~355 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)12
Transit stops (400 m)32
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.25
Park perimeter355 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
48.5 / 100

8 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, bench, drinking_water, garden, picnic, …). 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%
41.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~888 m; 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.0/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)888 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon11
Tree density11.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used35

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
79.6 / 100

74 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 65 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 7.4 m (~2 floors); 20.8 buildings per 100 m of 355 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m74
Buildings within 50 m74
Avg edge height7.4 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building66.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8
Low-rise (< 3 floors)65
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density20.84 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge11%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter355 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
18.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth. 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 (8 types · 21 records)

  • playground
  • tennis
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • picnic
  • pool
  • table tennis

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • rail: Line 2 Bloor-Danforth8 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station33 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station34 m
  • retail: Koodo42 m
  • retail: La Monica Fashion Boutique42 m
  • retail: HearingLife43 m
  • restaurant: Len Duckworth Fish&Chips43 m
  • retail: Univercell43 m
  • retail: Health Service Centre43 m
  • restaurant: Al-Mani Grill & Biryani43 m
  • retail: Saffron Halal Meat43 m
  • retail: Shoe Avenue43 m
  • retail: Shega Salon & Aesthetics43 m
  • restaurant: Grillies44 m
  • restaurant: Jem Bar44 m
  • retail44 m
  • retail: Telus45 m
  • restaurant: Eva's Bar & Restaurant46 m
  • retail: Belal Furniture & Mattress46 m
  • retail: Benjamin Moore47 m
  • retail48 m
  • restaurant: Su-Good Chinese Restaurant48 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station49 m
  • retail: Arya Bakery54 m
  • transit stop54 m
  • retail55 m
  • retail: Growers Retail57 m
  • retail58 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue59 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue60 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue64 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station64 m
  • transit stop: Main Street65 m
  • transit stop: Main Street65 m
  • retail67 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station69 m
  • transit stop71 m
  • restaurant: KC Authentic Caribbean Cuisine71 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue73 m
  • cafe: Great Fruit Bubble Tea81 m
  • retail84 m
  • retail: Shewa Grocery & Variety86 m
  • retail88 m
  • restaurant: Baital Muqadas Halal Pizza & Wings90 m
  • restaurant: Subway90 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station91 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue92 m
  • transit stop: Main Street Station92 m
  • retail: Wine Rack93 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons97 m
  • transit stop: Main Street99 m
  • retail: Danforth Furniture101 m
  • retail: Value Buds102 m
  • retail: Dignity Memorial Giffen-Mack Funeral Home105 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue108 m
  • retail114 m
  • retail: Pavillion Pastries Cafe117 m
  • retail: Danforth Market128 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue128 m
  • restaurant: Sultan Shawarma & Falafel128 m
  • retail: SN Gold Jewelry Buyers-Cash For Gold130 m
  • parking lot136 m
  • restaurant: Bistro Camino139 m
  • transit stop: Danforth Avenue139 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes143 m
  • transit stop: Danforth Avenue143 m
  • retail145 m
  • cafe: Rehoboth Cafe148 m
  • retail: Main Square Smoke & Gift149 m
  • retail: Kara Fresh Meat149 m
  • retail150 m
  • restaurant: Kera Restaurant153 m
  • restaurant: Mr. Tasty's Restaurant156 m
  • retail: Osmow's157 m
  • transit stop: Dawes Road158 m
  • transit stop: Danforth Avenue158 m
  • retail: Fashion Bargin161 m
  • retail163 m
  • highway: Danforth Avenue165 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureColeman 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
    96th
  • Edge activation
    88th
  • Connectivity
    85th
  • Amenity diversity
    97th
  • Natural comfort
    39th
  • Enclosure
    84th

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.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score53 / 100
53.1 / 100

p73 citywide · p81 within Urban Plaza

Volume (saturated)20
Density / ha71
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
122
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (1.00 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 Coleman 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.
  • 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. 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.