Dr. Lillian McGregor Park
Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 56, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.
Dr. Lillian McGregor Park scores 56.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (27.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.50 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 56 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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
Dr. Lillian McGregor Park works because its edge activation score (62) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (27) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).
What limits this park
Dr. Lillian McGregor 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 (62, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Dr. Lillian McGregor 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 Urban Plaza) (gap +15).
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 5016 m², paved (0% canopy), 48.7 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 87 active uses (cafe, retail, restaurant, transit_stop) and 4 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 43 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~378 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water). 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
Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.
Source: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
184 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (93 mid-rise, 25 low-rise, 66 tower); avg edge height 41.6 m (~14 floors); 48.7 buildings per 100 m of 378 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 66 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 93 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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
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 · 15 records)
- playground
- bench
- drinking water
Nearby active-edge features (80)
- retail: Cha Payom13 m
- retail: E-Blue Esport Stadium15 m
- retail: LOCO SPACE21 m
- retail: My Touch Beauty Spa & Salon23 m
- retail: Rabba24 m
- parking lot24 m
- retail: Platis Cleaners25 m
- cafe: City Bakery & Cafe27 m
- restaurant: Ali Baba's29 m
- retail: Rogers32 m
- restaurant: Subway34 m
- retail: Signs & Prints37 m
- restaurant: BOKU (Yonge St.)39 m
- transit stop: Bay Street42 m
- retail: La Para42 m
- retail44 m
- restaurant: Taqueria El Pastorictio45 m
- retail45 m
- retail: Adult Mart45 m
- retail: Chakra Healing Zone46 m
- cafe: Charlies Tea46 m
- restaurant: The Fry46 m
- retail: Venus Nails & Esthetics47 m
- restaurant: Mr Tonkasu47 m
- restaurant: Woojoo Bunsik49 m
- restaurant49 m
- retail: Kream51 m
- restaurant: McDonald's53 m
- transit stop: Wellesley Street West53 m
- retail53 m
- restaurant: Bone Soup Malatang55 m
- retail: Lamoure57 m
- parking lot58 m
- highway: Yonge Street60 m
- restaurant: Sushi Garden60 m
- retail: Lu Dream Spa61 m
- parking lot62 m
- retail: Galleria Supermarket Express62 m
- retail: Effi Bike62 m
- retail: United Perfumes & Cellular68 m
- restaurant: Fish Buy Buy69 m
- retail: PP Pet69 m
- restaurant: Taning Lemon Tea69 m
- restaurant: Church's Chicken70 m
- retail: Cash 4 You70 m
- restaurant: Egg Club70 m
- restaurant: Sweetpepper71 m
- retail: Toronto Tees71 m
- restaurant: ramen RAIJIN73 m
- restaurant: Diyijia73 m
- retail73 m
- retail: LCBO74 m
- retail: Exposures Photography74 m
- retail: Dollarama74 m
- transit stop: Wellesley Street West75 m
- retail: Shu Cake76 m
- restaurant: Mars Village Eatery76 m
- retail76 m
- retail: L3 Digital Print & Copy76 m
- retail: Van-Thi Barber & Hair Stylist;Van Barber & Hair Stylists78 m
- transit stop: Wellesley79 m
- retail80 m
- restaurant: Darvish Persian Cuisine81 m
- retail: Ultra Convenience82 m
- restaurant: Slay Fruits82 m
- retail84 m
- restaurant: Freshii85 m
- retail: Super Vape85 m
- restaurant: HI Bowl85 m
- transit stop: Bay Street85 m
- retail: BZB Convenicne86 m
- transit stop: Yonge Street88 m
- retail: Henri's Optical88 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons88 m
- retail: Milano Nails & Spa88 m
- restaurant: Firehouse Subs92 m
- retail: Ralph's Barber Shop92 m
- retail: Ho's Place93 m
- retail93 m
- retail: Kawaii Spa93 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality98th
- Edge activation98th
- Connectivity75th
- Amenity diversity80th
- Natural comfort64th
- Enclosure76th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza55
- HOLY CROSS CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building GroundsParkette54
- Parliament Square ParkCivic Square57
- David Crombie ParkParkette57
- Harry W. Arthurs CommonNeighbourhood Park57
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
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 Dr. Lillian McGregor 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.
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.
Data sources
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.