The Roy McMurtry Green
Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 46, rank ~89th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.
The Roy McMurtry Green scores 46.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.65 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%
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 46 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
The Roy McMurtry Green works because its edge activation score (60) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (80) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).
What limits this park
The Roy McMurtry Green is held back by natural comfort (26, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (60, top decile).
Jacobs reading
The Roy McMurtry Green sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (53) significantly outpaces natural comfort (26): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+9 vs the median in small Parkette).
Typology classification
Classified as Parkette: small (6526 m²) with strong building frontage (3.2 per 100 m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe, community) 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 10 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~376 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
No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~255 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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
12 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 11.1 m (~4 floors); 3.2 buildings per 100 m of 376 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Atkinson 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 (0)
No amenities recorded for this park.
Nearby active-edge features (31)
- transit stop: The Pond Road at Sentinel Road West Side8 m
- parking lot: Atkinson Lot19 m
- cafe: The Break Café28 m
- retail: Excalibur49 m
- transit stop: Sentinel Road at The Pond Road55 m
- community: Osgoode Hall Library60 m
- cafe: Aroma Espresso Bar65 m
- retail: Gateway on the Go75 m
- restaurant: Sushi-Q81 m
- transit stop: Sentinel Road at The Pond Road South Side88 m
- restaurant: Meltwich Food Co89 m
- restaurant: Subway90 m
- restaurant: M2GO98 m
- restaurant: Pizza Studio100 m
- parking lot108 m
- parking lot: Nelson Road Lot141 m
- parking lot142 m
- parking lot147 m
- parking lot150 m
- parking lot154 m
- parking lot160 m
- restaurant: Bahn Mi Boys168 m
- restaurant: Indian Streatfood178 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons186 m
- cafe: Gong Cha187 m
- parking lot: Haynes Avenue Lot189 m
- restaurant: Pizza Pizza189 m
- parking lot190 m
- restaurant: Osmow's192 m
- restaurant: Pita Pit193 m
- cafe: Starbucks194 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality89th
- Edge activation98th
- Connectivity64th
- Amenity diversity51th
- Natural comfort11th
- Enclosure84th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Opera PlaceUrban Plaza48
- Hto Park WestUrban Plaza49
- Earlscourt ParkUrban Plaza51
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza41
- Lakeview Avenue ParketteUrban Plaza52
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
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 The Roy McMurtry Greenmatters. 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.
- 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
- 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.