Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Mount Pleasant Cemetery — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Mount Pleasant East (99)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Mount Pleasant Cemetery

Other, above average overall (score 41, rank ~80th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Mount Pleasant Cemetery scores 41.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (60). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:varies — see metrics

Area · 42.84 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
41.4 / 100
Citywide
80th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
97th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
26
median in Other (n=154)
Performance gap
+16
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

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 · p58
-10.0
Edge Activation25 · p85
-6.2
Connectivity74 · p94
+4.7
Enclosure / Eyes on Park74 · p75
+2.4
Natural Comfort60 · p75
+1.5
Border Vacuum Risk60 (risk)
-1.0

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

Mount Pleasant Cemetery works because its connectivity score (74) is in the top tier and its edge activation (25) is also top quartile (40 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 27 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Mount Pleasant Cemetery's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 60.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (74, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Mount Pleasant Cemetery sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (60) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 41 versus an expected 26 for similar parks (Other) (gap +16).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (42.8 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 11.8/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
25.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 26 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 7 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%
73.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 51 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 27 street intersections within 100 m; 40 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~3,123 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m21
Intersections within 100 m27
Paths/walkways (50 m)11
Sidewalk segments (50 m)51
Transit stops (400 m)40
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.67
Park perimeter3,123 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% weightmeasured 75%
59.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 19.3% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~289 m; 14 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.3/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage19.3%
Canopy area8.26 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)289 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon14
Tree density0.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)70.7
Sample points used472

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
73.6 / 100

370 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (36 mid-rise, 332 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 7.1 m (~2 floors); 11.8 buildings per 100 m of 3,123 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 36 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m370
Buildings within 50 m370
Avg edge height7.1 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building49.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)36
Low-rise (< 3 floors)332
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density11.85 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge10%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter3,123 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
60.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" — they 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 (51)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — Brendan Road2 m
  • transit stop — Orchard Green2 m
  • transit stop — Mount Pleasant Cemetery3 m
  • transit stop — Lumley Avenue4 m
  • transit stop — Brendan Road18 m
  • retail — Bayview Moore Automotive18 m
  • transit stop — Orchard Green19 m
  • transit stop — Mount Pleasant Cemetery19 m
  • retail — Hasty Market23 m
  • transit stop — Lumley Avenue25 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Ave at Moore Ave North Side26 m
  • transit stop — Sutherland Dr at Bayview Ave27 m
  • retail — Global Hearing Aid Clinic28 m
  • parking lot29 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Ave at Moore Ave29 m
  • parking lot33 m
  • retail — Bayview Rug Gallery35 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Ave at Sutherland Dr East Side41 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Ave at McRae Dr43 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Hut43 m
  • parking lot55 m
  • retail — a la spa + beauty bar62 m
  • transit stop — Moore Avenue64 m
  • transit stop — Bayview Ave at Merton St67 m
  • transit stop — Merton Street70 m
  • restaurant — Dhillon's Karahi77 m
  • transit stop — Moore Avenue82 m
  • retail — WhitePia Cleaners82 m
  • retail — Mount Pleasant Pet Grooming88 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • transit stop — Merton Street101 m
  • parking lot111 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • cafe — Starbucks125 m
  • retail — Bosley Real Estate142 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons159 m
  • retail — Circle K162 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • parking lot166 m
  • parking lot177 m
  • transit stop189 m
  • parking lot193 m
  • parking lot194 m
  • transit stop — Sutherland Dr at Bessborough Dr196 m
  • parking lot199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureMount Pleasant Cemetery

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    80th
  • Edge activation
    85th
  • Connectivity
    94th
  • Amenity diversity
    58th
  • Natural comfort
    75th
  • 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.

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 Mount Pleasant Cemeterymatters. 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

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.