Lamport Stadium Park
Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 46, rank ~88th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Lamport Stadium Park scores 46 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (14.6). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 2.89 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%
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 46 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
Lamport Stadium Park works because its connectivity score (75) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (43) is also top decile (27 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 17 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).
What limits this park
Lamport Stadium Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 72.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (75, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Lamport Stadium 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 (76) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 15): frame without animation.
- High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (72): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+7 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.9 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 5 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 22 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, cafe, retail) and 8 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 24 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 17 street intersections within 100 m; 27 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~708 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
6 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, bench, picnic, sports_field, table_tennis). 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 components for this park: ~27.2% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1009 m; 112 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (38.8/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
28 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 8 low-rise, 5 tower); avg edge height 19.7 m (~7 floors); 4.0 buildings per 100 m of 708 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 5 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 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, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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
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 (6 types · 12 records)
- playground
- tennis
- bench
- picnic
- sports field
- table tennis
Nearby active-edge features (76)
- transit stop: Joe Shuster Way6 m
- transit stop: Joe Shuster Way9 m
- transit stop: Jefferson Avenue15 m
- parking lot25 m
- retail: PetSmart27 m
- retail: Winners28 m
- retail: Longo's30 m
- cafe: Starbucks30 m
- retail: Toronto Camera Service Centre30 m
- retail: Structube31 m
- retail: Canadian Tire32 m
- restaurant: School37 m
- parking lot38 m
- parking lot41 m
- parking lot43 m
- parking lot44 m
- parking lot47 m
- restaurant: McDonald's53 m
- restaurant: Caffino61 m
- retail: Fuzion Convenience61 m
- transit stop: Atlantic Avenue69 m
- parking lot71 m
- cafe: Louie Coffee71 m
- cafe: Arvo72 m
- parking lot78 m
- restaurant: Liberty Village Market & Café84 m
- restaurant: Kinton Ramen87 m
- retail: Gioia Beauty and Spa91 m
- cafe: Breadflour96 m
- transit stop: King Street West97 m
- restaurant: The Craft Brasserie & Bar110 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision110 m
- restaurant: Impact111 m
- retail: L Studio Salon Spa120 m
- parking lot121 m
- transit stop: Atlantic Avenue122 m
- parking lot124 m
- retail: Ren’s Pets132 m
- parking lot132 m
- parking lot136 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision136 m
- parking lot138 m
- transit stop140 m
- restaurant: The Lounge140 m
- parking lot144 m
- restaurant: Left Field Brewery154 m
- retail: west elm157 m
- restaurant: Chipotle160 m
- restaurant: Barcelona Tavern160 m
- retail: No Frills161 m
- parking lot165 m
- parking lot166 m
- parking lot167 m
- parking lot171 m
- parking lot175 m
- retail: The Makeover Place Inc.175 m
- parking lot177 m
- retail: Dollarama179 m
- parking lot180 m
- retail: Convenience Canada181 m
- retail182 m
- restaurant: Mildred’s Temple Kitchen185 m
- restaurant: Levetto185 m
- retail189 m
- cafe: Balzac's Coffee190 m
- restaurant: Subway190 m
- parking lot192 m
- parking lot194 m
- retail: LCBO194 m
- restaurant196 m
- parking lot197 m
- transit stop: Dufferin Street198 m
- rail: Weston Subdivision198 m
- rail: Galt Subdivision198 m
- parking lot199 m
- parking lot200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality88th
- Edge activation74th
- Connectivity96th
- Amenity diversity94th
- Natural comfort72th
- Enclosure79th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Trethewey Park WestNeighbourhood Park53
- Fairbank Memorial ParkCivic Square49
- Macgregor PlaygroundNeighbourhood Park48
- Woolner ParkNeighbourhood Park51
- SWANSEA COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE - Building GroundsRavine / Naturalized Park47
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
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 Lamport Stadium 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.