St. James Park
Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 62, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by Imran Rashid via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
St. James Park scores 62.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: natural comfort (47.9). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 1.97 ha
What's here
Getting around
986 m of mapped path, 100% paved.
2 flights of steps on the mapped network.
Typically 6 m to the nearest bench, and 26 m at the far end.
Nearest parking 17 m away. None of the 10 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Data confidence: moderate
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).
Public art in this park
1I Looked for Sarah Everywhere
Gilbert Boyer, 2001
Sculpture · masonry, steel
Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art
2Statue
Source: OpenStreetMap
3Robert Gourlay
Adrienne Alison, 2004
Sculpture · bronze, granite
Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art
Near the park
4Sculpture
Source: OpenStreetMap
Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.
Explain this score
Where did the 62 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
St. James Park works because its connectivity score (85) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (52) is also top decile (25 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 21 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).
What limits this park
St. James Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 48.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (85, top decile).
Jacobs reading
St. James Park is a dense urban social park. Jacobs would recognise it: lots of eyes, lots of streets, lots of edge life; not where you go to escape.
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (85) significantly outpaces natural comfort (48): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
- 24 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 62 versus an expected 40 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +22).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 2.0 ha, framed by 112 mid-rise vs 24 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 45 active uses (restaurant, retail, transit_stop, cafe) 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.
Connectivity
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 38 mapped paths/walkways and 49 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 21 street intersections within 100 m; 2 subway or GO stations, 14 streetcar or LRT stops, 9 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 13 estimated access points across ~634 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. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
7 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, art, bench, drinking_water, garden, picnic, …). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 3 public artworks in the park and 1 nearby add a bonus for the number of works.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~12.4% effective canopy (2.9% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~871 m; 35 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (17.7/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. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
164 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (112 mid-rise, 28 low-rise, 24 tower); avg edge height 26.8 m (~9 floors); 25.9 buildings per 100 m of 634 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 24 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 112 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.
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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.
Amenities (7 types · 63 records)
- playground
- art
- bench
- drinking water
- garden
- picnic
- shelter
Nearby active-edge features (80)
- transit stop: Jarvis Street8 m
- transit stop: Church Street12 m
- parking lot17 m
- retail22 m
- retail22 m
- retail: King's Cleaners22 m
- restaurant: Quesada22 m
- retail: Imperial Rug Galleries Ltd.23 m
- cafe: Cafe Oro di Napoli24 m
- retail24 m
- restaurant: Biagio Ristorante24 m
- retail: Indochino24 m
- restaurant: Score on King25 m
- retail: World Salon25 m
- restaurant: Bombay Palace Haute Indian Cuisine26 m
- retail: Ma-Zone27 m
- restaurant: Triple A Bar29 m
- retail: Edible Arrangements31 m
- retail: Spiritleaf34 m
- parking lot35 m
- parking lot35 m
- retail: The Printing House37 m
- retail: Tony Shamas Hair & Salon45 m
- restaurant: Freshii45 m
- parking lot48 m
- retail: BoConcept52 m
- cafe: Chatime53 m
- retail: INS Market54 m
- retail: INS Market58 m
- transit stop: Church Street58 m
- retail: Curl Bar64 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons65 m
- retail: Beauchamp Art Gallery66 m
- retail: Gautier68 m
- restaurant: St. Louis Bar & Grill68 m
- cafe: Third Wave Coffee Inc.69 m
- retail: Sol'Exotica73 m
- retail: Flatiron’s Christmas Market74 m
- restaurant: Bar Ardo74 m
- restaurant: Terroni74 m
- restaurant: Pi Co.78 m
- transit stop: Jarvis Street79 m
- cafe: Versus82 m
- retail: Cloré Beauty Supply84 m
- restaurant: Gyu-Kaku89 m
- retail: Velvet Lane Cakes90 m
- retail: Evok95 m
- retail: The Optic Zone97 m
- retail: Valet Service Cleaners99 m
- cafe: Treats100 m
- retail: Lift100 m
- cafe: Fahrenheit Coffee100 m
- restaurant: Nami Japanese Restaurant100 m
- retail: The Great Tailor103 m
- retail: Office & Shop Furniture106 m
- restaurant: Subway107 m
- restaurant: Mystic Muffin110 m
- retail: French Quarter Convenience & Grocery110 m
- restaurant: The Corner Place113 m
- restaurant: Piano Piano114 m
- restaurant: bgood118 m
- restaurant: Chadani120 m
- restaurant: The Jason George122 m
- restaurant: Mercatto Restaurant126 m
- restaurant: Carisma126 m
- cafe: Sam James Coffee Bar127 m
- retail: Toronto Scalp Micropigmentation Studio127 m
- retail: O Sole Salon & Spa127 m
- restaurant: Pizzaiolo127 m
- restaurant128 m
- cafe: Young Cafe128 m
- restaurant: Don Alfonso 1890128 m
- parking lot132 m
- restaurant: Woods132 m
- retail: Metro134 m
- retail: Bulloch Tailors137 m
- restaurant: Cora137 m
- parking lot139 m
- restaurant: Popeyes139 m
- retail: Flowers & Flowers140 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality99th
- Edge activation97th
- Connectivity100th
- Amenity diversity98th
- Natural comfort52th
- Enclosure91th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Grange ParkNeighbourhood Park66
- Wells Hill ParkParkette65
- Dufferin Grove ParkNeighbourhood Park68
- Vermont Square ParkCivic Square67
- Alexandra ParkAthletic / Recreation Park59
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 Park26
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
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.
“Scenic city park featuring flower gardens, walking paths, a fountain & a produce-themed playground.” (Google editorial summary)
p97 citywide · p98 within Neighbourhood Park
Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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 St. James 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.
What would improve this park?
Generated from the weakest measured dimensions: a starting point, not a prescription.
- Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.
- 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: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.