Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Flemington Park, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Englemount-Lawrence

Flemington Park

Corridor / Linear Park, middle of the pack overall (score 33, rank ~45th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Flemington Park scores 33.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 3.12 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldBasketballGarden
Facilities
Benches

Getting around

Paths

837 m of mapped path, 78% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (2 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 5 m away. 1 of 52 nearby lots reporting 2 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
33/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
33.4 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
45th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
52nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=70)
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.

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 33 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 · p29
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Connectivity72 · p93
+4.4
Natural Comfort31 · p16
-2.9
Amenity Diversity40 · p92
-2.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p60
+1.4

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

Flemington Park works because its connectivity score (72) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (40) is also top decile (19 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 23 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Flemington Park is held back by natural comfort (31, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (72, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Flemington Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (72) significantly outpaces natural comfort (31): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 3.5× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (3.1 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop) and 38 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
71.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 70 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 23 street intersections within 100 m; 1 subway or GO station, 18 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 12 estimated access points across ~2,203 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m23
Paths/walkways (50 m)1
Sidewalk segments (50 m)70
Transit stops (400 m)19 (1 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 18 bus)
Estimated entrances12
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.23
Park perimeter2,203 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, playground, sports_field, bench, garden). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 30%
30.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.6/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

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 polygon2
Tree density0.6 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used62

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.4 / 100

90 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 75 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.8 m (~2 floors); 4.1 buildings per 100 m of 2,203 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m90
Buildings within 50 m90
Avg edge height6.8 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building14.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)75
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density4.09 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge17%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter2,203 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Allen Road, parking_lot, Allen Road, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, 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

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 (5 types · 13 records)

  • basketball
  • playground
  • sports field
  • bench
  • garden

Nearby active-edge features (76)

  • parking lot5 m
  • highway: Allen Road11 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Varna Dr16 m
  • highway: Allen Road25 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Stockton Rd25 m
  • parking lot25 m
  • parking lot31 m
  • parking lot32 m
  • parking lot32 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • parking lot37 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • parking lot42 m
  • transit stop: Varna Dr at Flemington Rd43 m
  • parking lot43 m
  • parking lot44 m
  • parking lot44 m
  • parking lot46 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • parking lot51 m
  • parking lot52 m
  • parking lot52 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University56 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Stockton Rd57 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • parking lot60 m
  • rail: Line 1 Yonge-University63 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • parking lot77 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Replin Rd86 m
  • parking lot92 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot99 m
  • transit stop: Varna Dr at Rondale Blvd102 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Replin Rd106 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Ranee Avenue115 m
  • parking lot116 m
  • transit stop: Varna Dr at Rondale Blvd119 m
  • parking lot120 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • transit stop127 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Ranee Avenue142 m
  • transit stop: Varna Dr at Tundra Lane143 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • community: North York Community House169 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Dynasty Lane170 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Blossomfield Dr172 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Blossomfield Dr180 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • transit stop: Varna Dr at Tundra Lane188 m
  • transit stop: Flemington Rd at Dynasty Lane189 m
  • transit stop: Varna Dr at Ranee Ave191 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • transit stop: Ranee Avenue at Flemington Rd194 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • parking lot198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFlemington 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
    45th
  • Edge activation
    29th
  • Connectivity
    93th
  • Amenity diversity
    92th
  • Natural comfort
    16th
  • Enclosure
    60th

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 Flemington 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.

  • 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

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.