Mccleary Playground
Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~90th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Mccleary Playground scores 47.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (17.1). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.14 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 70%
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 47 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
Mccleary Playground works because its enclosure score (85) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (33) is also top quartile (11 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).
What limits this park
Mccleary Playground's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 36.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (85, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Mccleary Playground 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 (85) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 17): frame without animation.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+10 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 1420 m², paved (19% canopy), 22.8 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe, transit_stop) and 5 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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 5 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 15 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~197 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
4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water, picnic). 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: 18.8% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~648 m; 3 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, 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
45 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (11 mid-rise, 34 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.8 m (~3 floors); 22.8 buildings per 100 m of 197 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 11 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision. 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 (4 types · 7 records)
- playground
- bench
- drinking water
- picnic
Nearby active-edge features (43)
- rail: Kingston Subdivision11 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision14 m
- retail: K.L. Coin Co.43 m
- retail: Bonjour Brioche62 m
- parking lot65 m
- restaurant: Tabule69 m
- transit stop: Empire Avenue78 m
- retail: Jimmy's Coffee80 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision81 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision83 m
- transit stop: Boulton Avenue83 m
- retail: Dirty Pawz84 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons91 m
- retail: Hair by Banks & Co104 m
- transit stop: Saulter Street106 m
- retail: Glassbox Barbershop110 m
- restaurant: Chez Nous111 m
- retail: Thyme Studio116 m
- cafe: Amber Kitchen and Coffee118 m
- retail: Teimuri Bespoke Tailoring121 m
- transit stop: Empire Avenue121 m
- retail: Arts Market128 m
- transit stop131 m
- retail: Papas Laundry134 m
- cafe: Queen Garden Cafe136 m
- restaurant: Kismet141 m
- restaurant: Lacarnita148 m
- retail: LCBO155 m
- parking lot163 m
- retail: Dollarama164 m
- community: Ralph Thornton Community Center171 m
- retail: Good Juice Box Vintage173 m
- restaurant: The Castle on Queen175 m
- retail: Pet Valu176 m
- retail: Waxon182 m
- retail: Common Sort189 m
- retail: Hooked191 m
- restaurant: Royal Baithak192 m
- restaurant: The Comrade195 m
- retail: Stephenson's Rental Services196 m
- retail197 m
- retail197 m
- restaurant: Blessed Love200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality90th
- Edge activation77th
- Connectivity82th
- Amenity diversity86th
- Natural comfort76th
- Enclosure91th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Leonard Linton ParkAthletic / Recreation Park49
- Ravina GardensRavine / Naturalized Park50
- BOWMORE PUBLIC SCHOOL - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park51
- Logan Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza47
- Blantyre ParkNeighbourhood Park44
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- 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 Mccleary Playgroundmatters. 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.