Matt Cohen Park
Urban Plaza, below average overall (score 26, rank ~16th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.
Aerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Matt Cohen Park scores 26.4 / 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.
Area · 0.13 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 26 come from? Each weighted contribution against a neutral 50 baseline. Green = pushed up; red = pulled down.
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 (30 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).
What limits this park
Matt Cohen Park is held back by edge activation (0, below-average): 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
Classified as Urban Plaza: 1291 m², paved (0% canopy), 34.0 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use
Connectivity
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; 24 transit 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.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
1 distinct amenity types in the park (bench). 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
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).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
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.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum 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: Toronto Street Centreline (highways) + rail layer + OSM landuse + building footprints
Equity Context
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 · 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.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality16th
- Edge activation33th
- Connectivity51th
- Amenity diversity58th
- Natural comfort37th
- Enclosure95th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Oak Street ParketteUrban Plaza35
- Greenbrae ParketteUrban Plaza36
- Coulter Ave ParketteUrban Plaza34
- Hillhurst ParketteUrban Plaza38
- HOLY FAMILY COMMUNITY CENTRE - Building GroundsParkette33
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park75
- Toronto ZooWaterfront Park67
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
- Toronto Islands - Island ParkWaterfront Park57
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 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.
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
- 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 FacilitiesInventory of in-park amenities (washrooms, fields, rinks…).
- Toronto Pedestrian NetworkSidewalk segments around and through parks; estimated park entrances.
- Toronto Centreline V2Street segments + intersection nodes near park edges; trails and walkways.
- Toronto 3D MassingBuilding footprints + heights for edge-building counts, frontage density, and tower-in-the-park risk.
- Toronto Treed AreaTree canopy share inside park polygons via stratified-grid sampling.
- Toronto Waterbodies & RiversWater surface inside parks + nearest-water distance for cooling.
- Ravine & Natural Feature ProtectionRavine overlap as a cooling / natural-comfort signal.
- Toronto Street Tree InventoryTree count + density inside park polygons.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.