Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban PlazaType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (enclosure-leaning)Moss Park

King/Queen Triangle

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 41, rank ~73th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.

No photograph yet. If you have one of King/Queen Triangle, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

King/Queen Triangle scores 40.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. 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

Getting around

Paths

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

Too little path mapped to check for steps.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 45 m away. None of the 13 nearby lots records whether it has 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
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
40.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
73rd
of all 3,752 parks
Among Urban Plaza
58th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=352)
Performance gap
+3
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.

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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
Amenity Diversity0 · p13
-10.0
Edge Activation20 · p78
-7.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park90 · p96
+4.0
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Connectivity61 · p78
+2.3
Natural Comfort44 · p43
-0.9

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

King/Queen Triangle works because its enclosure score (90) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (61) is also top quartile (12 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

King/Queen Triangle is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (90, top decile).

Jacobs reading

King/Queen Triangle 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 (90) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 20): frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 1263 m², paved (0% canopy), 11.1 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
20.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (cafe, transit_stop, retail) and 5 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
61.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 23 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 15 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~171 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m12
Intersections within 100 m15
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)23
Transit stops (400 m)12
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter7.03
Park perimeter171 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%
43.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.7% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~132 m; 11 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (11.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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)132 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon11
Tree density11.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used10

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
90.2 / 100

19 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (12 mid-rise, 6 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 15.1 m (~5 floors); 11.1 buildings per 100 m of 171 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 12 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m19
Buildings within 50 m19
Avg edge height15.1 m (~5 floors)
Tallest edge building56.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)12
Low-rise (< 3 floors)6
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density11.13 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge63%
Tower share of edge5%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter171 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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

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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (30)

  • transit stop: Queen Street East7 m
  • transit stop: River Street8 m
  • transit stop: River Street14 m
  • transit stop: King Street East24 m
  • retail: Gears31 m
  • transit stop: River Street33 m
  • retail39 m
  • transit stop: River Street42 m
  • parking lot45 m
  • parking lot47 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons48 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • restaurant: Impact Kitchen120 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • rail: GO Transit - Bala Subdivision129 m
  • parking lot161 m
  • retail: Pharmasave River St. Pharmacy162 m
  • retail: Corktown Cleaners165 m
  • retail: Bright River General Store166 m
  • retail: Jiugi Flowers174 m
  • parking lot179 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • parking lot181 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • retail: Manstop Barbershop187 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot196 m
  • retail196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureKing/Queen Triangle
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
    73th
  • Edge activation
    78th
  • Connectivity
    78th
  • Amenity diversity
    13th
  • Natural comfort
    43th
  • Enclosure
    96th

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 King/Queen Triangle 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.
  • 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.
  • Neighbourhood Profiles
    (Pending) Equity context proxy.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.