Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Matt Cohen Park, site photograph
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)University

Matt Cohen Park

Urban Plaza, below average overall (score 27, rank ~18th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Matt Cohen Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Matt Cohen Park scores 26.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.13 ha

What's here

Facilities
Benches

Getting around

Paths

116 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (2 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 41 m away. 1 of 11 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
27/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
26.9 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
18th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Urban Plaza
4th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
-11
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

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).

Near the park

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

Explain this score

Where did the 27 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 · p6
-12.5
Amenity Diversity13 · p64
-7.3
Border Vacuum Risk100 (risk)
-5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p94
+3.8
Natural Comfort41 · p36
-1.4
Connectivity47 · p52
-0.7

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

Matt Cohen Park works because its enclosure score (88) is in the top tier and its amenity diversity (13) is also above-average (30 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Matt Cohen Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (88, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Matt Cohen 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 (88) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • 14 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -11; cohort: pocket Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1291 m², paved (0% canopy), 34.0 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 22 active uses (transit_stop, retail, cafe, restaurant) and 14 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
46.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 7 street intersections within 100 m; 3 subway or GO stations, 4 streetcar or LRT stops, 6 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~168 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m7
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)13
Transit stops (400 m)13 (3 subway/GO, 4 streetcar/LRT, 6 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter168 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
13.3 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (bench). 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% weightinferred 24%
40.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~8.4% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 12 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (12.0/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 polygon12
Tree density12.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used13

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.4 / 100

57 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (30 mid-rise, 13 low-rise, 14 tower); avg edge height 22.1 m (~7 floors); 34.0 buildings per 100 m of 168 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 14 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 30 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m57
Buildings within 50 m57
Avg edge height22.1 m (~7 floors)
Tallest edge building65.6 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)30
Low-rise (< 3 floors)13
Towers (≥ 13 floors)14
Frontage density33.97 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge53%
Tower share of edge25%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter168 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
100.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Bloor Street West, Bloor Street West, Spadina Avenue, Bloor Street West, 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 (1 types · 2 records)

  • bench

Nearby active-edge features (64)

  • highway: Spadina Avenue13 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West15 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West17 m
  • transit stop: Spadina Avenue26 m
  • retail: Sutherland-Chan Clinic34 m
  • retail: Enchanting beauty35 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West38 m
  • retail: Three Cent Copy Centre39 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • transit stop: Spadina Avenue44 m
  • retail: Nice Cleaners50 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West57 m
  • retail: Duke57 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons58 m
  • restaurant: Majestic Shawarma63 m
  • highway: Spadina Avenue67 m
  • highway: Spadina Avenue69 m
  • restaurant: Daily Dumpling70 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West72 m
  • restaurant: Pita Land72 m
  • transit stop: Spadina Station72 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West75 m
  • retail: Freedom Mobile75 m
  • transit stop: Spadina Station78 m
  • retail: La La Bakeshop83 m
  • retail: glossix84 m
  • retail85 m
  • restaurant: Zaad88 m
  • transit stop: Spadina Road East Entrance88 m
  • parking lot92 m
  • transit stop: Spadina Road West Entrance95 m
  • restaurant: WooJoo Bunsik96 m
  • restaurant: Masters96 m
  • parking lot97 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West104 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • transit stop: Spadina120 m
  • transit stop: Spadina123 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West137 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West137 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West164 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West167 m
  • restaurant: Bhoj Indian Cuisine171 m
  • restaurant: Wild Wing171 m
  • transit stop: Sussex Avenue175 m
  • retail: Galleria The Kitchen Express179 m
  • restaurant: Ghazale179 m
  • transit stop: Walmer Road180 m
  • retail: Annex Photo181 m
  • parking lot183 m
  • restaurant: Burrito Bandidos184 m
  • retail185 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Maido187 m
  • highway: Bloor Street West191 m
  • restaurant: So Famous193 m
  • retail: Chelsea Shop194 m
  • parking lot199 m
  • retail: COBS Bread199 m
  • highway: Spadina Avenue199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMatt Cohen 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
    18th
  • Edge activation
    6th
  • Connectivity
    52th
  • Amenity diversity
    64th
  • Natural comfort
    36th
  • Enclosure
    94th

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 Matt Cohen 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.
  • 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.
  • 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: 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.