Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Mccleary Park, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)South Riverdale (70)confidence moderate

Mccleary Park

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~33th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Mccleary Park scores 30.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (60). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 3.07 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports field
Facilities
WashroomDrinking water
Vitality Score
30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
30.4 / 100
Citywide
32nd
of all 3,788 parks
Among Other
65th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Other (n=181)
Performance gap
+1
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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).

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 · p42
-12.5
Amenity Diversity27 · p79
-4.5
Natural Comfort25 · p9
-3.7
Connectivity59 · p75
+1.9
Border Vacuum Risk60 (risk)
-1.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park53 · p24
+0.3

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

Mccleary Park works because its amenity diversity score (27) is above average and its connectivity (59) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Mccleary Park is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (60).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (25, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Mccleary Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (59) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • Although its citywide rank is low (32nd), it ranks highly among similar others (65th): strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (3.1 ha, 3 amenity types, frontage 1.0/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 6 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
59.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 10 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 15 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~706 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m8
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)10
Sidewalk segments (50 m)10
Transit stops (400 m)15
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.13
Park perimeter706 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
27.3 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (sports_field, washroom, drinking_water). 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 30%
25.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~423 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)423 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used212

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
52.9 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 4 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 9.0 m (~3 floors); 1.0 buildings per 100 m of 706 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m7
Buildings within 50 m7
Avg edge height9.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building20.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)4
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.99 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge43%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)67%
Park perimeter706 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
60.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Lake Shore Boulevard East, Lake Shore Boulevard East. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that 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 (3 types · 7 records)

  • sports field
  • washroom
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (27)

  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East7 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East21 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East64 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • parking lot87 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East119 m
  • parking lot122 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East134 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners St at Logan Ave136 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners St at Bouchette St137 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners St at Logan Ave156 m
  • transit stop: Commissioners St at Bouchette St161 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East162 m
  • retail: Circle K176 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East184 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • retail: AJ Self Storage185 m
  • parking lot186 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons187 m
  • highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East188 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMccleary 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
    33th
  • Edge activation
    42th
  • Connectivity
    75th
  • Amenity diversity
    79th
  • Natural comfort
    9th
  • Enclosure
    24th

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 Mccleary 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.

  • 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

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.