Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park — site photograph
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Annex (95)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park

Urban Plaza, one of the city's strongest overall (score 50, rank ~95th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: connectivity.

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

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park scores 50 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). 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 · 0.12 ha

Vitality Score
50/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
50.0 / 100
Citywide
95th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Urban Plaza
92nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=337)
Performance gap
+14
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 50 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 Diversity12 · p73
-7.6
Edge Activation74 · p99
+6.1
Connectivity23 · p11
-5.3
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park97 · p100
+4.7
Natural Comfort31 · p14
-2.8

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

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park works because its enclosure score (97) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (74) is also top decile (26 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Joseph Burr Tyrrell Park is held back by connectivity (23, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (97, top decile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 50 versus an expected 36 for similar parks (pocket Urban Plaza) (gap +14).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1156 m², paved (0% canopy), 58.1 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
74.2 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 55 active uses (retail, restaurant, cafe, transit_stop, school) and 2 dead/hostile uses (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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightpartial 65%
23.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 26 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~145 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)26
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter145 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (playground). 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% weightinferred 24%
31.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/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 polygon1
Tree density1.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
96.9 / 100

84 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (26 mid-rise, 56 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 9.2 m (~3 floors); 58.1 buildings per 100 m of 145 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 26 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m84
Buildings within 50 m84
Avg edge height9.2 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building50.4 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)26
Low-rise (< 3 floors)56
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density58.08 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge31%
Tower share of edge2%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter145 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • retail41 m
  • retail — Thunderstruck Books41 m
  • retail — Alex Cuts42 m
  • retail42 m
  • restaurant — Fresh Kitchen + Juice Bar43 m
  • restaurant — The Chulo44 m
  • retail — Esu Massage Therapy44 m
  • retail — Casa Lugo45 m
  • retail46 m
  • retail — Triton46 m
  • restaurant — Blanco Cantina50 m
  • transit stop51 m
  • parking lot51 m
  • restaurant — Freshii54 m
  • restaurant — Scotty Bons56 m
  • restaurant — Belly Buster57 m
  • retail — Ollie Quinn60 m
  • restaurant — Burger's Priest62 m
  • restaurant — Vietnam Lovely Noodle63 m
  • restaurant — Fuwa Fuwa Japanese Pancakes65 m
  • restaurant — St. Louis Bar & Grill68 m
  • transit stop69 m
  • restaurant — El Furniture Warehouse69 m
  • retail — Runners Shop72 m
  • retail — Curbside Cycle76 m
  • cafe — Palgong Tea76 m
  • restaurant — Kenzo Ramen78 m
  • retail — BMV Cafe78 m
  • retail — BMV Books79 m
  • restaurant — Future Bistro79 m
  • restaurant — Myeongdong79 m
  • retail — Value Village Boutique79 m
  • restaurant — Indian Desire79 m
  • retail — Knob Hill Cleaners80 m
  • retail — Sleep Country80 m
  • restaurant — Pizzaiolo80 m
  • retail — Annex Psyhic81 m
  • retail — Green Vibe81 m
  • restaurant — Brown Donkatsu81 m
  • retail — COBS Bread82 m
  • cafe — M Chá Bar84 m
  • retail — Piya's Boutique85 m
  • school — Spirit of Math86 m
  • restaurant — So Famous87 m
  • restaurant — Monkey Sushi Restaurant87 m
  • cafe — Cong90 m
  • restaurant — Souvlaki Place90 m
  • restaurant — Sushi Maido92 m
  • retail92 m
  • highway — Bloor Street West93 m
  • restaurant — Burrito Bandidos93 m
  • retail — Juxtapose Cards & Gifts94 m
  • restaurant — The lab94 m
  • retail — 420 Zone Inc97 m
  • restaurant — Ghazale97 m
  • retail — Annex Photo98 m
  • retail — relocation99 m
  • highway — Bloor Street West101 m
  • retail — Wiener's Home Hardware101 m
  • parking lot101 m
  • restaurant — Raffaella106 m
  • restaurant — Wild Wing106 m
  • retail — fixt106 m
  • cafe — Simit-Chi106 m
  • transit stop — Walmer Road108 m
  • restaurant — Victory Cafe110 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • retail — Bulk Barn115 m
  • restaurant — The Green Room116 m
  • highway — Bloor Street West116 m
  • restaurant — Annex Billiard Club120 m
  • restaurant — Mezcalero125 m
  • retail — Seekers Books125 m
  • community129 m
  • cafe — Slanted Door132 m
  • cafe — Wildhearts Cafe138 m
  • highway — Bloor Street West141 m
  • restaurant — Crafty Coyote143 m
  • parking lot145 m
  • restaurant — Nang Saigon146 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureJoseph Burr Tyrrell Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    95th
  • Edge activation
    99th
  • Connectivity
    11th
  • Amenity diversity
    73th
  • Natural comfort
    14th
  • Enclosure
    100th

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 Joseph Burr Tyrrell 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.

  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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.