Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Stonehouse Burying Ground — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)Willowridge-Martingrove-Richview (7)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Stonehouse Burying Ground

Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 44, rank ~87th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: amenity diversity.

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

Stonehouse Burying Ground scores 44 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.06 ha

Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
44.0 / 100
Citywide
87th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
90th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Parkette (n=287)
Performance gap
+13
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 44 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 · p14
-10.0
Edge Activation25 · p85
-6.2
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Natural Comfort76 · p88
+3.9
Enclosure / Eyes on Park89 · p95
+3.8
Connectivity37 · p30
-2.5

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

Stonehouse Burying Ground works because its enclosure score (89) is in the top tier and its natural comfort (76) is also top quartile (3 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Stonehouse Burying Ground is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (89, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Stonehouse Burying Ground sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (76) significantly outpaces connectivity (37) — restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 44 versus an expected 31 for similar parks (pocket Parkette) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (561 m²) with strong building frontage (13.0 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
25.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (transit_stop) and 1 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%
37.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~95 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)10
Transit stops (400 m)14
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter95 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% weightpartial 60%
75.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 81.2% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~779 m. Reading: well-shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage81.2%
Canopy area0.05 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)779 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)69.6
Sample points used16

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.5 / 100

13 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 10 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.3 m (~3 floors); 13.0 buildings per 100 m of 95 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m13
Buildings within 50 m13
Avg edge height10.3 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building33.7 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3
Low-rise (< 3 floors)10
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density13.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge23%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter95 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city — no significant border vacuum detected.

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 (8)

  • transit stop — Longbourne Drive32 m
  • transit stop — Longbourne Drive45 m
  • transit stop — Longbourne Dr at Martin Grove Rd62 m
  • parking lot81 m
  • transit stop — Caverley Drive123 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • transit stop — Sedgeley Drive147 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureStonehouse Burying Ground

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    87th
  • Edge activation
    85th
  • Connectivity
    30th
  • Amenity diversity
    14th
  • Natural comfort
    88th
  • Enclosure
    95th

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 Stonehouse Burying Groundmatters. 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.
  • 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.

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.