Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Bay-Cloverhill

Dr. Lillian Mcgregor Park

Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 59, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Dr. Lillian Mcgregor Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Dr. Lillian Mcgregor Park scores 59.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (28.7). 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 · 0.52 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Drinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

373 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Typically 6 m to the nearest bench, and 16 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 24 m away. None of the 12 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
59/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
59.2 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
99th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
96th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=107)
Performance gap
+18
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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Near the park

  • Image of artwork: Leaf Garden

    1Leaf Garden

    Barbara Steinman, 2003

    Architecture / Landscape · Granite, Landscaping, Water

    The park at Opera Place is a sculptural space inspired by the relationship between nature and urban design. Foliage in the half-acre park consists of a variety of trees, shrubs, perennials, grass, ground cover and bulbs that ensure the park is visually pleasing throughout the year. The leaf nodes and main 'stem' pathways in the park are of coloured concrete, granite and soft planting with granite segments water jet cut like the cells of a leaf. The park also has a water feature inset in one of the leaf nodes. Alternately misting and spraying in a Morse code sequence it spells out 'it's time the stone consented to bloom' - a line of poetry by Romanian born poet Paul Celan.

    Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art

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

Explain this score

Where did the 59 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
Connectivity72 · p94
+4.5
Amenity Diversity29 · p83
-4.3
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Edge Activation62 · p98
+2.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park73 · p76
+2.3
Natural Comfort50 · p56
+0.0

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

Dr. Lillian Mcgregor Park works because its edge activation score (62) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (72) is also top decile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Dr. Lillian Mcgregor 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 edge activation (62, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Dr. Lillian Mcgregor 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 59 versus an expected 42 for similar parks (small Urban Plaza) (gap +18).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 5187 m², paved (0% canopy), 48.4 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
61.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 87 active uses (cafe, retail, restaurant, transit_stop) and 4 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%
72.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 16 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 2 subway or GO stations, 3 streetcar or LRT stops, 9 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~382 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)16
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)14 (2 subway/GO, 3 streetcar/LRT, 9 bus)
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.83
Park perimeter382 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.7 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water). 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% weightinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used37

Source: Not loaded yet: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
73.0 / 100

185 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (93 mid-rise, 25 low-rise, 67 tower); avg edge height 42.2 m (~14 floors); 48.4 buildings per 100 m of 382 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 67 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 93 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m185
Buildings within 50 m185
Avg edge height42.2 m (~14 floors)
Tallest edge building193.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)93
Low-rise (< 3 floors)25
Towers (≥ 13 floors)67
Frontage density48.42 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge50%
Tower share of edge36%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter382 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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: 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 (3 types · 15 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • retail: Cha Payom6 m
  • retail: E-Blue Esport Stadium15 m
  • retail: LOCO SPACE18 m
  • retail: My Touch Beauty Spa & Salon23 m
  • retail: Rabba24 m
  • parking lot24 m
  • retail: Platis Cleaners25 m
  • cafe: City Bakery & Cafe27 m
  • restaurant: Ali Baba's29 m
  • retail: Rogers32 m
  • restaurant: Subway34 m
  • retail: Signs & Prints37 m
  • restaurant: BOKU (Yonge St.)39 m
  • transit stop: Bay Street42 m
  • retail: La Para42 m
  • retail44 m
  • retail45 m
  • restaurant: Taqueria El Pastorictio45 m
  • retail: Adult Mart45 m
  • retail: Chakra Healing Zone46 m
  • restaurant: The Fry46 m
  • cafe: Charlies Tea46 m
  • retail: Venus Nails & Esthetics47 m
  • restaurant: Mr Tonkasu47 m
  • restaurant48 m
  • restaurant: Woojoo Bunsik49 m
  • retail: Kream51 m
  • restaurant: McDonald's53 m
  • transit stop: Wellesley Street West53 m
  • retail53 m
  • restaurant: Bone Soup Malatang55 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • retail: Lamoure57 m
  • highway: Yonge Street60 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Garden60 m
  • retail: Lu Dream Spa60 m
  • parking lot61 m
  • retail: Effi Bike62 m
  • retail: Galleria Supermarket Express62 m
  • restaurant: Fish Buy Buy65 m
  • retail: United Perfumes & Cellular68 m
  • restaurant: Taning Lemon Tea69 m
  • retail: PP Pet69 m
  • restaurant: Church's Chicken70 m
  • retail: Cash 4 You70 m
  • restaurant: Egg Club70 m
  • retail: Exposures Photography71 m
  • retail: Toronto Tees71 m
  • restaurant: Sweetpepper71 m
  • restaurant: Diyijia72 m
  • restaurant: ramen RAIJIN73 m
  • retail73 m
  • retail: Shu Cake73 m
  • retail: LCBO74 m
  • retail: Dollarama74 m
  • retail: Van-Thi Barber & Hair Stylist;Van Barber & Hair Stylists75 m
  • transit stop: Wellesley Street West75 m
  • restaurant: Mars Village Eatery75 m
  • retail76 m
  • retail: L3 Digital Print & Copy76 m
  • transit stop: Wellesley77 m
  • restaurant: Slay Fruits79 m
  • restaurant: Darvish Persian Cuisine80 m
  • retail80 m
  • retail: Super Vape81 m
  • retail: Ultra Convenience82 m
  • retail83 m
  • retail: Henri's Optical85 m
  • restaurant: Freshii85 m
  • restaurant: HI Bowl85 m
  • transit stop: Bay Street85 m
  • retail: BZB Convenicne86 m
  • retail: Milano Nails & Spa88 m
  • transit stop: Yonge Street88 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons88 m
  • retail: Kawaii Spa90 m
  • restaurant: Firehouse Subs91 m
  • retail92 m
  • retail: Coach House Tavern Restaurant92 m
  • retail92 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDr. Lillian Mcgregor 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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    98th
  • Connectivity
    94th
  • Amenity diversity
    83th
  • Natural comfort
    56th
  • Enclosure
    76th

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 Dr. Lillian Mcgregor 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.

  • 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.