Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Mcgregor Park — site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Dorset Park (126)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Mcgregor Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~55th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Mcgregor Park scores 35.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (84). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 3.91 ha

Vitality Score
35/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
35.1 / 100
Citywide
55th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
8th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in medium Athletic / Recreation Park (n=68)
Performance gap
-7
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 35 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 · p45
-12.5
Border Vacuum Risk84 (risk)
-3.4
Connectivity60 · p74
+2.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park71 · p70
+2.1
Amenity Diversity40 · p99
-2.0
Natural Comfort43 · p43
-1.1

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

Mcgregor Park works because its amenity diversity score (40) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (60) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Mcgregor Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 84.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (40, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (71) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (84) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -7; cohort: medium Athletic / Recreation Park).
  • Citywide rank is high (55th) but typology rank is more modest (8th) — the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 60% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, sports_field, tennis). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (3.9 ha, framed by 9 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 12 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%
60.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 13 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~791 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)23
Transit stops (400 m)13
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.63
Park perimeter791 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
39.8 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, community_centre, playground, sports_field, tennis). 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%
42.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.7% effective canopy (0.8% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~744 m; 43 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.0/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 coverage0.8%
Canopy area0.03 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)744 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon43
Tree density11.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)6.5
Sample points used262

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
70.6 / 100

50 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (9 mid-rise, 41 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.2 m (~2 floors); 6.3 buildings per 100 m of 791 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 9 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m50
Buildings within 50 m50
Avg edge height7.2 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building35.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)9
Low-rise (< 3 floors)41
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density6.32 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge18%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter791 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
84.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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" — 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 (5 types · 5 records)

  • basketball
  • community centre
  • playground
  • sports field
  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (37)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — 2231 Lawrence Ave East3 m
  • parking lot12 m
  • parking lot35 m
  • transit stop — 2216 Lawrence Avenue East41 m
  • parking lot42 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • parking lot60 m
  • parking lot64 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • parking lot108 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • retail — Al-Quresh118 m
  • cafe — Coffee In125 m
  • parking lot131 m
  • restaurant — Roadhouse Wings132 m
  • parking lot134 m
  • restaurant — Spice is Rite141 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • retail146 m
  • restaurant — Wong's Asian Cuisine156 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • parking lot162 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • retail167 m
  • retail172 m
  • retail — Firdous177 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • retail183 m
  • retail190 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • restaurant — Scarborough Pizza Kabob196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMcgregor Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    55th
  • Edge activation
    45th
  • Connectivity
    74th
  • Amenity diversity
    99th
  • Natural comfort
    43th
  • Enclosure
    70th

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 Mcgregor 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.