Michael Power Park
Parkette, above average overall (score 43, rank ~82th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Michael Power Park scores 43.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.69 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 43 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
Michael Power Park works because its connectivity score (72) is in the top tier and its enclosure (85) is also top decile (19 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).
What limits this park
Michael Power Park'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 connectivity (72, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Michael Power 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 (85) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+6 vs the median in small Parkette).
Typology classification
Classified as Parkette: small (6914 m²) with strong building frontage (9.8 per 100 m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 22 active uses (retail, transit_stop, restaurant) and 10 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 27 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 19 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~337 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
3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, shelter). 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: ~23.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~186 m; 34 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (34.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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
33 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (11 mid-rise, 17 low-rise, 5 tower); avg edge height 15.4 m (~5 floors); 9.8 buildings per 100 m of 337 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 11 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. 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 (3 types · 10 records)
- playground
- bench
- shelter
Nearby active-edge features (71)
- transit stop: Royalavon Crescent1 m
- parking lot12 m
- transit stop: Royalavon Crescent20 m
- parking lot29 m
- parking lot30 m
- retail: Q-Market38 m
- retail: Choe’s Hair Salon38 m
- retail: AMA aesthetic38 m
- retail: Q-Farm39 m
- restaurant: Mama Rosa Restaurant & Bar39 m
- retail: JH Computers39 m
- retail: Mr. Cell Phone39 m
- retail: European Patisserie39 m
- retail: Scarlet Tailor Alteration Dry Cleaners41 m
- retail: Gent’s Barber Shop42 m
- parking lot54 m
- parking lot54 m
- retail: Cleanze Wash & Fold Laundromat55 m
- restaurant: Ikkoi Sushi & Ramen58 m
- parking lot59 m
- parking lot61 m
- retail: S&C Hair Studio62 m
- restaurant: Toji Sushi66 m
- restaurant: John's Fish 'n' Chips70 m
- parking lot71 m
- retail: Igli Salon & Spa73 m
- retail: Nice Diggz78 m
- restaurant: Resurrection Restaurant + Bar82 m
- parking lot84 m
- retail: Plumpitupp Medical Aesthetic Clinic88 m
- parking lot89 m
- retail: Royal Custom Cleaners97 m
- transit stop100 m
- parking lot103 m
- retail: Traditional Korean Bakery107 m
- restaurant: Thai Room Grand115 m
- transit stop117 m
- parking lot117 m
- retail: Delspa126 m
- retail: Perfect Touch Nail & Spa127 m
- retail: Edwards Builders Hardware128 m
- restaurant: Miss Natalie’s Tropical Cuisine131 m
- transit stop131 m
- parking lot132 m
- parking lot: Toronto Parking Authority Lot 520137 m
- retail: Earthroot Cannabis137 m
- cafe: Galata Turkish Café142 m
- transit stop144 m
- retail: Phoenix Blossom Spa148 m
- retail: Hasty Market153 m
- restaurant: Pizza Depot155 m
- parking lot156 m
- parking lot163 m
- retail: Tranquility Wellness Spa166 m
- parking lot172 m
- retail: Espresso Bakery & Deli173 m
- transit stop: Resurrection Road175 m
- parking lot175 m
- restaurant: Chodang Soontofu175 m
- transit stop: Resurrection Road175 m
- retail: Morning Flower178 m
- restaurant: Pizza Hut180 m
- retail: Twin Scissors Hair & Spa182 m
- highway: Bloor Street West182 m
- retail185 m
- retail: Seniors Store187 m
- parking lot190 m
- parking lot192 m
- retail192 m
- highway: Bloor Street West197 m
- retail: Coconut Grove Nail And Esthetic Boutique198 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality82th
- Edge activation49th
- Connectivity94th
- Amenity diversity79th
- Natural comfort72th
- Enclosure91th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Spadina ParkCorridor / Linear Park44
- Duplex ParketteRavine / Naturalized Park38
- Ziibiing Indigenous LandscapeParkette39
- Ben Nobleman ParkParkette36
- Garrison Creek ParkRavine / Naturalized Park35
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Marita Paine ParkOther47
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 Michael Power 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.