Regent Park Athletic Grounds
Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 57, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by Michael M via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Regent Park Athletic Grounds scores 56.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (30.5). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 1.56 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 57 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
Regent Park Athletic Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (59) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (70) is also top decile (11 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).
What limits this park
Regent Park Athletic Grounds 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 amenity diversity (59, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Regent Park Athletic Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (70) significantly outpaces natural comfort (42): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
- 12 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 57 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +17).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.6 ha, framed by 31 mid-rise vs 12 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (restaurant, retail, cafe, transit_stop) and 4 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 25 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 24 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~504 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
11 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, tennis, track, washroom, bench, garden, …). 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: ~6.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~330 m; 15 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.6/ha). Reading: exposed. 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
69 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (31 mid-rise, 26 low-rise, 12 tower); avg edge height 25.8 m (~9 floors); 13.7 buildings per 100 m of 504 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 12 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 31 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. 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 (11 types · 28 records)
- basketball
- tennis
- track
- washroom
- bench
- garden
- ice rink
- picnic
- shelter
- sports field
- table tennis
Nearby active-edge features (55)
- retail: Hasty Mart22 m
- restaurant: Kibo Sushi24 m
- restaurant: Freddy's Greek27 m
- parking lot46 m
- parking lot76 m
- parking lot82 m
- cafe: Le Beau82 m
- retail: Wine Rack82 m
- restaurant: Liberty Pizza83 m
- restaurant: Wendy's84 m
- retail: Rogers90 m
- transit stop: Dundas Street East90 m
- retail: Rabba94 m
- parking lot96 m
- restaurant: Subway104 m
- retail: Purple Factory105 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street105 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons106 m
- retail: Jiugi Flowers111 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street112 m
- retail: Bright River General Store116 m
- retail: Pharmasave River St. Pharmacy118 m
- transit stop: River Street119 m
- transit stop: Dundas Street East122 m
- parking lot124 m
- retail: Circle K125 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons128 m
- restaurant: Popeyes128 m
- parking lot130 m
- restaurant: Tahini's134 m
- transit stop: River Street140 m
- parking lot141 m
- parking lot151 m
- parking lot152 m
- parking lot152 m
- community: Daniels Spectrum161 m
- parking lot167 m
- retail171 m
- restaurant: Los Gyros172 m
- retail172 m
- retail172 m
- parking lot172 m
- retail: Pro League173 m
- retail: Manstop Barbershop174 m
- retail: Vistek174 m
- parking lot178 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street184 m
- transit stop: Sumach Street189 m
- cafe: Bevy189 m
- parking lot189 m
- parking lot194 m
- parking lot195 m
- retail: Audi Downtown Toronto196 m
- retail: Knick Kach Paddy Whack200 m
- retail200 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality98th
- Edge activation87th
- Connectivity91th
- Amenity diversity99th
- Natural comfort40th
- Enclosure86th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Stanley Park South - TorontoNeighbourhood Park58
- Jimmie Simpson ParkNeighbourhood Park49
- Wanless ParkNeighbourhood Park55
- Coleman ParkUrban Plaza53
- Stanley Park North - TorontoNeighbourhood Park56
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
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
p70 citywide · p65 within Neighbourhood Park
Source: Google Places API · match medium (0.88 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
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 Regent Park Athletic Groundsmatters. 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.
- 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.