Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)South Riverdale (70)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~87th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds scores 44 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.03 ha

Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
44.0 / 100
Citywide
87th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Urban Plaza
81st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)
Performance gap
+8
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 44 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
Amenity Diversity0 · p43
-10.0
Natural Comfort23 · p2
-4.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p94
+3.8
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Connectivity57 · p68
+1.4
Edge Activation51 · p96
+0.2

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

QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (51) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (88) is also top decile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (57) significantly outpaces natural comfort (23) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+8 vs the median in pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 272 m², paved (0% canopy), 45.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
50.9 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 29 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
56.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~73 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter6.00
Park perimeter73 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 24%
23.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1018 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)1,018 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used9

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
87.6 / 100

45 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 35 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 45.0 buildings per 100 m of 73 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 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m45
Buildings within 50 m45
Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building16.5 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)35
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density45.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge22%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter73 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot. 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (74)

  • transit stop — Queen Street East2 m
  • transit stop — Carlaw Avenue13 m
  • retail — Benjamin Moore23 m
  • retail — easyfinancial24 m
  • retail — Morrison & Co.24 m
  • retail — Culture Athletics24 m
  • parking lot26 m
  • retail — Kotn27 m
  • transit stop — Carlaw Avenue29 m
  • retail — Alter34 m
  • restaurant — Ricky + Oliver37 m
  • retail — CarlaW Carburetors40 m
  • retail — Good Neighbour42 m
  • retail — Bike Repair Clinic48 m
  • retail — Woodgreen Pharmacy48 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • restaurant — Mean Bao50 m
  • cafe — Maha’s Cafe50 m
  • transit stop — Queen Street East51 m
  • retail — Province of Canada55 m
  • retail — Daniel's Jewelers59 m
  • parking lot60 m
  • restaurant — Eastside Social70 m
  • retail75 m
  • restaurant — Wei's Bar & Variety80 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • restaurant — Masa Deli85 m
  • retail — House of Vapes89 m
  • restaurant — Leslie's Sandwhich Room90 m
  • retail — Mona Spa Nails93 m
  • restaurant — My Roti Place Xprss97 m
  • retail — Boston Discount Store100 m
  • retail — Logan Motors Used Car Sales100 m
  • retail — Canopy Kids102 m
  • retail — Poka Dottie's Dog Grooming103 m
  • restaurant — Ocha's104 m
  • cafe — Pilot Coffee Roasters106 m
  • retail — Platis Cleaners108 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • retail — Garden's Path Floral Design111 m
  • retail — Quick Clean Center112 m
  • retail — Studio One Tattoo Supplies112 m
  • retail — Maral Salon121 m
  • retail — Zig Zag122 m
  • cafe — Mercury Espresso122 m
  • retail — Fuzz Wax Bar125 m
  • restaurant — Ramona's Kitchen128 m
  • retail — Queen & Jones Pawnbrokers129 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • retail136 m
  • retail — The Flamingo137 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • retail — Glass Monocle142 m
  • retail — Johnson Family Bakery144 m
  • transit stop — Pape Avenue147 m
  • retail — The Grove151 m
  • retail — Value Village155 m
  • retail — Max's Wholesale156 m
  • cafe — Nutbar157 m
  • restaurant — Maestro's171 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • retail — Ollie Quinn174 m
  • retail — The Source Bulk Foods178 m
  • retail180 m
  • retail — Queen Books186 m
  • retail — Rowe Farms187 m
  • retail — Good Market192 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • retail — Leslieville Cheese Market East & Fine Foods193 m
  • transit stop — Pape Avenue195 m
  • parking lot196 m
  • restaurant — Slowhand Sourdough Pizza197 m
  • retail198 m
  • cafe — Purple Penguin Cafe198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureQUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    87th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    68th
  • Amenity diversity
    43th
  • Natural comfort
    2th
  • Enclosure
    94th

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 QUEEN STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GROUNDS - Building 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.

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.

  • 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

  • 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.