Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Maple Claire Park, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Junction Area (90)confidence moderate

Maple Claire Park

Neighbourhood Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 60, rank ~99th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Francisco Naranjo via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Maple Claire Park scores 60.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (46.1). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban lifefamilies

Area · 1.14 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports field
Facilities
Drinking waterPicnic areaShelterBenchesPublic art
Vitality Score
60/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
60.2 / 100
Citywide
99th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=393)
Performance gap
+21
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong 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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Maple Claire Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 60 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity65 · p84
+2.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park70 · p70
+2.0
Edge Activation54 · p97
+0.9
Amenity Diversity46 · p95
-0.8
Natural Comfort51 · p65
+0.1

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

Maple Claire Park works because its edge activation score (54) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (46) is also top decile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Maple Claire Park doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (54, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Maple Claire 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 60 versus an expected 39 for similar parks (medium Neighbourhood Park) (gap +21).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.1 ha, framed by 2 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
53.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
64.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 4 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~419 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m9
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)4
Sidewalk segments (50 m)16
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances3
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.15
Park perimeter419 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
46.1 / 100

7 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, art, bench, drinking_water, picnic, shelter, …). 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% weightpartial 45%
50.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~16.6% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~321 m; 27 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (23.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, 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)321 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon27
Tree density23.8 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used80

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
69.9 / 100

56 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 54 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.9 m (~2 floors); 13.4 buildings per 100 m of 419 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 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m56
Buildings within 50 m56
Avg edge height6.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building14.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)54
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density13.37 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter419 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 (7 types · 13 records)

  • playground
  • art
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • picnic
  • shelter
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (44)

  • restaurant: Victory's Kitchen29 m
  • transit stop: Gunn's Loop53 m
  • transit stop: Gunn's Loop64 m
  • restaurant: Shoeless Joe's81 m
  • retail: Nations Fresh Foods83 m
  • transit stop: Gunn's Road91 m
  • retail: C Wave Optical98 m
  • transit stop: Old Stock Yards101 m
  • retail: Telus/Koodo108 m
  • restaurant: A&W110 m
  • retail: Walking on a Cloud112 m
  • retail: Zwilling113 m
  • retail: Ardene115 m
  • retail: La Vie en Rose115 m
  • parking lot116 m
  • retail: Sally Beauty119 m
  • retail: Popeye's Supplements121 m
  • cafe: Marry Me Mochi121 m
  • retail: The Children's Place122 m
  • retail: Canadian Tire125 m
  • transit stop: Old Stock Yards125 m
  • retail: The Shoe Company126 m
  • retail: Sephora126 m
  • retail: First Choice HairCutters131 m
  • retail: Snuggle Bugz132 m
  • restaurant: Tahini’s138 m
  • retail: Roots141 m
  • restaurant: Halibut House144 m
  • restaurant: Mr. Puff’s Dessert Bar146 m
  • restaurant: Mary Brown's153 m
  • retail: Pet Valu161 m
  • retail: Carter's OshKosh168 m
  • restaurant: Panda Express171 m
  • retail: Bell173 m
  • parking lot: Garage South174 m
  • retail: Winners174 m
  • retail: Marshalls178 m
  • retail: Men Zone Barbershop179 m
  • retail: Nails for You182 m
  • retail: LCBO185 m
  • restaurant: Sunset Grill188 m
  • cafe: Chatime191 m
  • restaurant: Firehouse Subs191 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMaple Claire 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
    99th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    84th
  • Amenity diversity
    95th
  • Natural comfort
    65th
  • 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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score52 / 100
52.2 / 100

p72 citywide · p67 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)25
Density / ha59
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
162
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Maple Claire 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
70%

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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.