Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Elijah Park, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Englemount-Lawrence

Elijah Park

Corridor / Linear Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 55, rank ~97th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Zale Tabakman via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Elijah Park scores 54.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (28.4). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 0.74 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Picnic areaBenches

Getting around

Paths

305 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (4 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 142 m away. 2 of 6 nearby lots reporting 5 accessible spaces.

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
55/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 70%

Data Confidence
54.6 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
97th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
98th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
34
median in small Corridor / Linear Park (n=82)
Performance gap
+20
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.
Elijah 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 55 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
Amenity Diversity28 · p80
-4.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park73 · p75
+2.3
Connectivity59 · p75
+1.9
Natural Comfort49 · p53
-0.2
Edge Activation50 · p96
+0.0

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

Elijah Park works because its edge activation score (50) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (28) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Elijah 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 (50, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Elijah 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 55 versus an expected 34 for similar parks (small Corridor / Linear Park) (gap +20).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.0× a circle of equal area

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
50.0 / 100

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

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
59.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 2 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 6 street intersections within 100 m; 20 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~611 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m6
Paths/walkways (50 m)11
Sidewalk segments (50 m)2
Transit stops (400 m)20 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 20 bus)
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.66
Park perimeter611 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
28.4 / 100

3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, picnic). Diversity 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. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 60%
48.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 11.5% estimated tree canopy; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage11.5%
Canopy area0.09 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 polygon1
Tree density1.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)51.6
Sample points used52

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
72.7 / 100

44 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 37 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 7.2 buildings per 100 m of 611 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 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m44
Buildings within 50 m44
Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building13.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)7
Low-rise (< 3 floors)37
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density7.20 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge16%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter611 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (3 types · 7 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • picnic

Nearby active-edge features (17)

  • transit stop: Wasdale Crescent at Neptune Drive72 m
  • transit stop: Wasdale Crescent at Rajah Street76 m
  • transit stop: 45 Wasdale Crescent76 m
  • transit stop: 86 Neptune Drive76 m
  • transit stop: Neptune Drive at Rajah Street82 m
  • transit stop: Hotspur Road at Neptune Drive89 m
  • transit stop: Neptune Drive at Rajah Street103 m
  • transit stop: 125 Neptune Drive127 m
  • parking lot142 m
  • transit stop: 122 Neptune Drive147 m
  • transit stop: Neptune Drive at Bathurst Street147 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • highway: Highway 401 Collector176 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureElijah 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
    97th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    75th
  • Amenity diversity
    80th
  • Natural comfort
    53th
  • Enclosure
    75th

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 score34 / 100
34.0 / 100

p26 citywide · p44 within Corridor / Linear Park

Volume (saturated)7
Density / ha32
Rating contribution73
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 3.9
out of 5
Ratings collected
35
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 Elijah 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.

  • 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.

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.