Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Market Garden Mews, site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Stonegate-Queensway (16)confidence moderate

Market Garden Mews

Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~58th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Market Garden Mews scores 36.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (6.3). 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 · 0.06 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
36.2 / 100
Citywide
58th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
38th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
-2
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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.

Explain this score

Where did the 36 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 Activation6 · p66
-10.9
Amenity Diversity21 · p70
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort22 · p0
-4.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park82 · p88
+3.2
Connectivity45 · p48
-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

Market Garden Mews works because its enclosure score (82) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (21) is also above-average (6 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Market Garden Mews is held back by natural comfort (22, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (22, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Market Garden Mews 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 (82) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Citywide rank is high (58th) but typology rank is more modest (38th): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 602 m², paved (0% canopy), 12.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
6.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (retail) and 1 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
44.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~99 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)9
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.00
Park perimeter99 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench). 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% weightinferred 24%
22.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1456 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)1,456 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used17

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
82.3 / 100

12 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.6 m (~3 floors); 12.0 buildings per 100 m of 99 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m12
Buildings within 50 m12
Avg edge height7.6 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building10.5 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)6
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density12.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge50%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter99 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

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

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 (2 types · 4 records)

  • playground
  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (46)

  • parking lot63 m
  • retail: Great Canadian Fireworks90 m
  • retail: Belleve Airbrush Tanning & Beauty Bar104 m
  • retail104 m
  • retail104 m
  • retail: Keke Hair Studio104 m
  • retail104 m
  • retail104 m
  • retail104 m
  • retail104 m
  • retail: La Chance Beauty Shalo & Gift Shop105 m
  • retail: Growers Retail108 m
  • retail: Kustom Cuts Barbershop109 m
  • restaurant: Rocco's Pizza & Pasta111 m
  • restaurant: Allwyn's Bakery114 m
  • retail: 6ixside Vapes117 m
  • retail: Wiggles Adult Video119 m
  • transit stop: Islington Avenue120 m
  • retail122 m
  • retail: Boss Spa Inc.123 m
  • retail: Reserved Cannabis123 m
  • parking lot125 m
  • retail126 m
  • restaurant: Best Portuguese Chicken126 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • retail: Kustom Cuts Barber Shop130 m
  • retail: Crystal Vision Optical132 m
  • transit stop: Canmotor Avenue134 m
  • parking lot136 m
  • retail: FotoBox142 m
  • transit stop: The Queensway145 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • restaurant: Ragu Scratch Pasta147 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • restaurant: The Pie Commission149 m
  • retail150 m
  • transit stop: Islington Avenue154 m
  • cafe: Cavallino Sports Cafe155 m
  • restaurant: Golden Lion Restaurant158 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • transit stop: The Queensway166 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • transit stop: Lady Bank Road171 m
  • restaurant: Sushi 2 Go182 m
  • parking lot198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMarket Garden Mews
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
    58th
  • Edge activation
    66th
  • Connectivity
    48th
  • Amenity diversity
    70th
  • Natural comfort
    0th
  • Enclosure
    88th

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 Market Garden Mewsmatters. 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.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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.