Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Regent Park, site photograph
Back to map
OtherType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Regent Park

Regent Park

Other, one of the city's strongest overall (score 57, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Sajedur Rahman via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Regent Park scores 57 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (24.7). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 2.34 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundOff-leash dog areaPoolGarden
Facilities
WashroomDrinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

942 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

5 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Typically 93 m to the nearest bench, and 151 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 38 m away. 1 of 10 nearby lots reporting accessible spaces without a count.

Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.

Vitality Score
57/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
57.0 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
98th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Other
100th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Other (n=179)
Performance gap
+27
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.
Regent 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).

Near the park

  • Image of artwork: Faces of Regent Park

    1Faces of Regent Park

    Dan Bergeron, 2015

    Sculpture · glass, steel, concrete

    This permanent public artwork was commissioned by the City of Toronto. The twelve photo-based, mixed-media portraits depict residents from the newly revitalized neighbourhood, which has been transformed from a strictly social housing only neighbourhood, to a mixed use development with an even split of social housing and market rate units. The six double-sided laminated glass panels are each nine feet high by six feet wide and two-and-a-half inches thick and weigh 2000 pounds. Aesthetically the work combines the familiarity of the human face with the distressed surfaces of aged architecture and infrastructure found in the urban environment. The graffiti tags have been meticulously rendered from actual markings found in the neighbourhood and act as representational signifiers of human presence on our streets, while the patterned effects symbolize the energy of human movement that give our cities their kinetic life. The vibrant and contrasting colours found within the backgrounds create a juxtaposition that helps to frame the black and white portraits, while simultaneously presenting the notion that we all stem from the same colourful tree. The twelve subjects were not easy to pick. As a cross section, they represent everyone who has, does or will live in Regent Park. Their faces are the welcome home to residents, the hello to local and international visitors to the neighbourhood, and the ever-present gatekeepers who will keep watch over Regent Park and remind us that it is through our differences that we gain strength and through our personal relationships that we create community.

    Photo: City of Toronto. Source: City of Toronto Public Art

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 57 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 Activation25 · p80
-6.3
Connectivity80 · p98
+5.9
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort68 · p84
+2.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p58
+1.4
Amenity Diversity48 · p96
-0.5

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

Regent Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (48) is also top decile (14 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Regent 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 connectivity (80, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Regent 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 (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 25): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 57 versus an expected 30 for similar parks (medium Other) (gap +27).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (2.3 ha, 7 amenity types, frontage 8.8/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
24.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 16 active uses (restaurant, cafe, community, retail, transit_stop) and 6 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
79.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 29 mapped paths/walkways and 43 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 8 streetcar or LRT stops, 2 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 9 estimated access points across ~647 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m17
Intersections within 100 m14
Paths/walkways (50 m)29
Sidewalk segments (50 m)43
Transit stops (400 m)10 (0 subway/GO, 8 streetcar/LRT, 2 bus)
Estimated entrances9
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.63
Park perimeter647 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
47.5 / 100

7 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, playground, washroom, bench, drinking_water, garden, …). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork near the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 45%
68.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~65.8% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~512 m; 220 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (94.1/ha). Reading: well-shaded. 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)512 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon220
Tree density94.1 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used163

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
63.7 / 100

57 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (16 mid-rise, 20 low-rise, 21 tower); avg edge height 37.2 m (~12 floors); 8.8 buildings per 100 m of 647 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 21 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 16 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m57
Buildings within 50 m57
Avg edge height37.2 m (~12 floors)
Tallest edge building98.1 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)16
Low-rise (< 3 floors)20
Towers (≥ 13 floors)21
Frontage density8.81 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge28%
Tower share of edge37%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter647 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot. 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (7 types · 21 records)

  • dog area
  • playground
  • washroom
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden
  • pool

Nearby active-edge features (40)

  • transit stop: Sumach Street10 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street13 m
  • retail: Purple Factory30 m
  • community: Daniels Spectrum35 m
  • retail: Rogers36 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street37 m
  • restaurant: Wendy's37 m
  • parking lot38 m
  • restaurant: Cafe Zuzu47 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes50 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • retail: Wine Rack58 m
  • parking lot59 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street61 m
  • restaurant: Liberty Pizza69 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons70 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • restaurant: Subway75 m
  • parking lot82 m
  • retail: Circle K91 m
  • cafe: Le Beau95 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street150 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street151 m
  • transit stop: Sackville Street152 m
  • transit stop: Sumach Street154 m
  • retail: Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel162 m
  • retail: J & D Mart164 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons165 m
  • retail: Jay's Garden167 m
  • retail: Rabba180 m
  • restaurant: Freddy's Greek182 m
  • restaurant: Tahini's184 m
  • retail: Pro League189 m
  • retail: Busy Bee Spa189 m
  • transit stop: River Street193 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • parking lot196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureRegent 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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    80th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    96th
  • Natural comfort
    84th
  • Enclosure
    58th

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 Regent Park matters. 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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.