Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Annex

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park

Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 59, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park scores 58.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: natural comfort (36.7). 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 · 0.13 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundGarden
Facilities
Drinking waterPicnic areaBenches

Getting around

Paths

57 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (2 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 49 m away. 1 of 10 nearby lots reporting accessible spaces without a count.

Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.

Vitality Score
59/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
58.6 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
98th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
96th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
+21
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.

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
Enclosure / Eyes on Park97 · p99
+4.7
Edge Activation67 · p99
+4.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Amenity Diversity39 · p91
-2.3
Natural Comfort37 · p28
-2.0
Connectivity52 · p62
+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

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park works because its enclosure score (97) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (67) is also top decile (26 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park is held back by natural comfort (37, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (97, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Joseph Burr Tyrrell 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 59 versus an expected 38 for similar parks (pocket Urban Plaza) (gap +21).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1284 m², paved (0% canopy), 52.6 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
66.6 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 58 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe, transit_stop) and 3 dead/hostile uses (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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightpartial 65%
51.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 3 subway or GO stations, 3 streetcar or LRT stops, 4 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~162 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)10 (3 subway/GO, 3 streetcar/LRT, 4 bus)
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.48
Park perimeter162 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
38.6 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water, garden, picnic). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
36.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.9% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 7 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (7.0/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 polygon7
Tree density7.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used15

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
96.6 / 100

85 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (26 mid-rise, 57 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 9.1 m (~3 floors); 52.6 buildings per 100 m of 162 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 26 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m85
Buildings within 50 m85
Avg edge height9.1 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building50.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)26
Low-rise (< 3 floors)57
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density52.63 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge31%
Tower share of edge2%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter162 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (5 types · 8 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • retail: Thunderstruck Books43 m
  • retail: Alex Cuts43 m
  • retail43 m
  • retail44 m
  • restaurant: Fresh Kitchen + Juice Bar45 m
  • retail: Esu Massage Therapy45 m
  • restaurant: The Chulo45 m
  • retail: Casa Lugo46 m
  • retail47 m
  • retail: Triton47 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • restaurant: Blanco Cantina50 m
  • transit stop53 m
  • restaurant: Freshii54 m
  • restaurant: Scotty Bons55 m
  • restaurant: Belly Buster56 m
  • retail: Ollie Quinn58 m
  • restaurant: Burger's Priest60 m
  • restaurant: Vietnam Lovely Noodle63 m
  • restaurant: Fuwa Fuwa Japanese Pancakes63 m
  • restaurant: El Furniture Warehouse66 m
  • restaurant: St. Louis Bar & Grill68 m
  • transit stop69 m
  • restaurant: Myeongdong Gyoza Kalguksu71 m
  • restaurant: Indian Desire71 m
  • retail: Knob Hill Cleaners71 m
  • retail: Runners Shop71 m
  • retail: BMV Books71 m
  • retail71 m
  • retail71 m
  • retail: Value Village Boutique71 m
  • retail: Chronic Collective Cannabis72 m
  • retail: Curbside Cycle72 m
  • retail: Sleep Country75 m
  • cafe: Palgong Tea75 m
  • restaurant: Pizzaiolo77 m
  • restaurant: Kenzo Ramen77 m
  • restaurant: Future Bistro79 m
  • restaurant: Brown Donkatsu80 m
  • retail: COBS Bread81 m
  • retail: Piya's Boutique81 m
  • cafe: M Chá Bar83 m
  • restaurant: So Famous86 m
  • restaurant: Monkey Sushi86 m
  • cafe: Cong86 m
  • restaurant: Souvlaki Place88 m
  • retail: Juxtapose Cards & Gifts90 m
  • retail: Blaze District91 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Maido91 m
  • retail91 m
  • restaurant: Burrito Bandidos92 m
  • retail: FunGuyz92 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West92 m
  • retail: 420 Zone94 m
  • restaurant: The lab95 m
  • retail: Relocation96 m
  • restaurant: Ghazale96 m
  • retail: Wiener's Home Hardware96 m
  • retail: Annex Photo97 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West97 m
  • cafe: Ahmetzade100 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • restaurant: Wild Wing105 m
  • restaurant: Victory Cafe105 m
  • transit stop: Walmer Road106 m
  • restaurant: Raffaella107 m
  • retail: Bulk Barn108 m
  • parking lot114 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West115 m
  • restaurant: Annex Billiard Club117 m
  • restaurant: Mezcalero121 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • retail: Seekers Books122 m
  • cafe: Slanted Door127 m
  • community130 m
  • cafe: Wildhearts Cafe135 m
  • restaurant: Crafty Coyote139 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West140 m
  • restaurant: Nang Saigon141 m
  • parking lot141 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureJoseph Burr Tyrrell 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
    99th
  • Connectivity
    62th
  • Amenity diversity
    91th
  • Natural comfort
    28th
  • 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 Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park matters. 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: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.