Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Margaret Fairley Park, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)University

Margaret Fairley Park

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 47, rank ~89th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Margaret Fairley 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

Margaret Fairley Park scores 47.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.15 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundPoolGarden
Facilities
Picnic areaBenchesPublic art

Getting around

Paths

49 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (4 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 200 m away. None of the 1 nearby lot 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.

Vitality Score
47/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
47.3 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
90th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
81st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
+9
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Public art in this park

  • Image of artwork: Margaret Fairley Memorial

    1Margaret Fairley Memorial

    Pauline Reddsell-Fediow, 1973

    Sculpture · bronze, masonry

    Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 47 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 · p11
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p95
+3.8
Connectivity68 · p88
+3.6
Natural Comfort38 · p32
-1.8
Amenity Diversity46 · p95
-0.9

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

Margaret Fairley Park works because its amenity diversity score (46) is in the top tier and its enclosure (88) is also top decile (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Margaret Fairley Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (46, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (38): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (88) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+9 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1494 m², paved (0% canopy), 48.7 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
67.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 6 streetcar or LRT stops, 2 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~152 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)8 (0 subway/GO, 6 streetcar/LRT, 2 bus)
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter5.26
Park perimeter152 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
45.7 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, art, bench, garden, picnic, pool). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork in the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
38.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~6.3% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 9 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (9.0/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 polygon9
Tree density9.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.4 / 100

74 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 59 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 8.0 m (~3 floors); 48.7 buildings per 100 m of 152 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 m74
Buildings within 50 m74
Avg edge height8.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building11.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)59
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density48.68 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge20%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter152 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (6 types · 13 records)

  • playground
  • art
  • bench
  • garden
  • picnic
  • pool

Nearby active-edge features (8)

  • retail: Ulster Coin Wash168 m
  • restaurant: Matha Roti192 m
  • restaurant: Blondie's Pizza192 m
  • cafe: Pedaal192 m
  • retail: The Curl Ambassador193 m
  • retail: Emmer195 m
  • transit stop: Brunswick Avenue196 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMargaret Fairley 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
    89th
  • Edge activation
    11th
  • Connectivity
    88th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    32th
  • Enclosure
    95th

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 Margaret Fairley 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.

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.