Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Lithuania Park, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)High Park North

Lithuania Park

Ravine / Naturalized Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 62, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Adam Brotherwood via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Lithuania Park scores 61.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (33.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 2.38 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldGarden
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

312 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Typically 16 m to the nearest bench, and 31 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 104 m away. None of the 4 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.

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
62/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
61.8 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
99th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
100th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=229)
Performance gap
+26
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.
Lithuania 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).

Near the park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 62 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort82 · p93
+4.7
Connectivity72 · p93
+4.4
Edge Activation33 · p89
-4.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park80 · p84
+3.0
Amenity Diversity45 · p94
-1.1

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

Lithuania Park works because its amenity diversity score (45) is in the top tier and its connectivity (72) is also top decile (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Lithuania 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 (45, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Lithuania 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 62 versus an expected 36 for similar parks (medium Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine) (gap +26).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 69% ravine overlap, 4% canopy. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (2.4 ha, framed by 9 mid-rise vs 4 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
33.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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% weightmeasured 85%
71.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 29 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 1 subway or GO station, 7 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~638 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m11
Paths/walkways (50 m)5
Sidewalk segments (50 m)29
Transit stops (400 m)8 (1 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 7 bus)
Estimated entrances7
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.73
Park perimeter638 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
44.6 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, sports_field, washroom, bench, drinking_water, garden). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork near the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
81.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~50.0% effective canopy (3.6% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 68.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~666 m; 170 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (71.4/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage3.6%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system68.5%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)666 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon170
Tree density71.4 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)67.0
Sample points used165

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
79.9 / 100

137 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 124 low-rise, 4 tower); avg edge height 8.5 m (~3 floors); 21.5 buildings per 100 m of 638 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 4 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m137
Buildings within 50 m137
Avg edge height8.5 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building68.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)124
Towers (≥ 13 floors)4
Frontage density21.49 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge3%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter638 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (6 types · 19 records)

  • playground
  • sports field
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden

Nearby active-edge features (11)

  • transit stop: Glenlake Avenue0 m
  • transit stop: Glenlake Avenue44 m
  • transit stop: Keele St at Hillsview Ave97 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • highway: Keele Street121 m
  • school: Mountview Alternative School Junior135 m
  • parking lot167 m
  • parking lot177 m
  • highway: Keele Street177 m
  • parking lot188 m
  • retail: The bike spa!194 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureLithuania 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
    99th
  • Edge activation
    89th
  • Connectivity
    93th
  • Amenity diversity
    94th
  • Natural comfort
    93th
  • 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.

“Park featuring a ball diamond & a multipurpose field, plus a playground & a wading pool.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score65 / 100
65.4 / 100

p86 citywide · p86 within Ravine / Naturalized Park

Volume (saturated)48
Density / ha66
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
465
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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 Lithuania 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.

  • 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.

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.