Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Maryland Park — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)East End-Danforth (62)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Maryland Park

Neighbourhood Park, above average overall (score 40, rank ~73th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

Maryland Park scores 39.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 1.03 ha

Vitality Score
40/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
39.5 / 100
Citywide
73rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
62nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+2
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 40 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
Edge Activation0 · p59
-12.5
Amenity Diversity28 · p95
-4.3
Connectivity70 · p91
+4.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park69 · p67
+1.9
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Natural Comfort43 · p45
-1.0

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

Maryland Park works because its amenity diversity score (28) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (70) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Maryland 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 amenity diversity (28, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Maryland Park 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 (43) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (69) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.0 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) and 2 dead/hostile uses (rail). 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
70.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 8 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 12 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~439 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m11
Intersections within 100 m12
Paths/walkways (50 m)8
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.50
Park perimeter439 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, washroom). 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

15% weightmeasured 75%
43.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.1% effective canopy (4.1% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~611 m; 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (8.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage4.1%
Canopy area0.04 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)611 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon9
Tree density8.8 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)24.7
Sample points used73

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
68.8 / 100

150 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 149 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.3 m (~2 floors); 34.1 buildings per 100 m of 439 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m150
Buildings within 50 m150
Avg edge height6.3 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building10.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)149
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density34.13 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge1%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter439 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Bloor-Danforth Line, Bloor-Danforth Line. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they suppress foot traffic and isolate the park from its neighbourhood.

Source: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints

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: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles

Amenities (3 types · 3 records)

  • playground
  • tennis
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (55)

  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line3 m
  • rail — Bloor-Danforth Line4 m
  • transit stop — Dawes Rd at Dentonia Park Ave100 m
  • transit stop — Dawes Rd at Dentonia Park Ave102 m
  • retail — Imag Convenience Store117 m
  • retail — Leon's137 m
  • retail — Fabric Town139 m
  • retail — Concord140 m
  • retail140 m
  • restaurant — Main Event140 m
  • retail — Buy & Sell Kings140 m
  • retail141 m
  • retail142 m
  • retail — Danforth Flooring143 m
  • retail143 m
  • cafe — Jemila Dubai Coffee145 m
  • retail — Your Carpet Connection148 m
  • restaurant — Danforth Roti Shop148 m
  • retail — Premium Cannabis151 m
  • retail — Edwards & Davies151 m
  • retail154 m
  • transit stop — Dawes Rd at Second Ave154 m
  • highway — Danforth Avenue156 m
  • retail — Mattress & Furniture House157 m
  • restaurant — Little Bangladesh Restaurant160 m
  • retail — Sherwin-Williams165 m
  • highway — Danforth Avenue165 m
  • retail — Dawes & Secord Convenience166 m
  • retail — Bike and Forth168 m
  • highway — Danforth Avenue170 m
  • retail — Chercher Butcher Store172 m
  • restaurant — Pizzaiolo174 m
  • retail — Dream Sense175 m
  • retail175 m
  • retail175 m
  • retail — Kaniz Boutique House175 m
  • retail — Jewellers Plus175 m
  • restaurant — Khazana Queen175 m
  • highway — Danforth Avenue178 m
  • retail180 m
  • transit stop — Secord Avenue182 m
  • retail182 m
  • retail — Dipika Fashion184 m
  • restaurant — Two Brothers Shwarma184 m
  • highway — Danforth Avenue185 m
  • restaurant — Safa Fried Chicken & Cafe185 m
  • retail186 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Pizza187 m
  • transit stop — Sibley Avenue188 m
  • transit stop — Sibley Avenue188 m
  • restaurant — Double Sushi191 m
  • retail — SHE Next Fashion191 m
  • transit stop — Dawes Rd at Danforth Ave194 m
  • retail — Cash Money199 m
  • retail — Elliot's Cigar Store200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMaryland Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    73th
  • Edge activation
    59th
  • Connectivity
    91th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    45th
  • Enclosure
    67th

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 Maryland 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.

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

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.
  • 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 — Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
  • 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.