Frank Stollery Parkette
Urban Plaza, middle of the pack overall (score 35, rank ~52th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.
Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Frank Stollery Parkette scores 34.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.05 ha
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Explain this score
Where did the 35 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
What limits this park
Most distinctive characteristic
Jacobs reading
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (40) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
- 31 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy — passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
- High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.
- Strong physical conditions (score 35) but weak observed activity signals (15) — the model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
Typology classification
Classified as Urban Plaza: 457 m², paved (0% canopy), 99.2 buildings/100 m
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 28 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant, cafe) and 7 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 34 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~102 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops
Amenity Diversity
No amenities recorded — score is 0 until inventory is loaded.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1074 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, 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
101 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (38 mid-rise, 32 low-rise, 31 tower); avg edge height 30.1 m (~10 floors); 99.2 buildings per 100 m of 102 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges lean tall but still framed; 31 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 38 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Yonge Street, parking_lot, Yonge Street, Yonge Street. 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
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 (71)
- transit stop1 m
- restaurant — Caffe Di Portici10 m
- retail — Big Bee16 m
- highway — Yonge Street17 m
- retail — The Vaper Store18 m
- transit stop — Davenport Road18 m
- parking lot20 m
- restaurant — Randy’s Roti & Doubles21 m
- restaurant — Fat Lamb Kouzina Homemade Greek Food27 m
- transit stop — Church Street33 m
- highway — Yonge Street33 m
- highway — Yonge Street33 m
- retail — Beauté d’Amour Nails Studio40 m
- retail — Mille Luce Designs Inc.49 m
- retail — Milan Condominiums54 m
- retail — The Noble Society54 m
- retail — Royal Dry Cleaners55 m
- restaurant — BiBab Express Sushi & Rolls58 m
- restaurant — Lee Chen Asian Bistro59 m
- retail — Solo Bace59 m
- retail — Canadian Tire61 m
- restaurant — hot dog stand62 m
- restaurant — Burrito Boyz62 m
- retail — Topcuts64 m
- retail — Weedjar65 m
- highway — Yonge Street68 m
- retail — Petit Pied Kids71 m
- restaurant — Mamma's Pizza71 m
- cafe — Tim Hortons78 m
- restaurant — Kiro Sushi80 m
- restaurant — Crown & Dragon Restaurant81 m
- restaurant — Yorkville Crepes81 m
- retail — BUCA91 m
- highway — Yonge Street93 m
- parking lot94 m
- retail — Vivid Cleaners & Alterations100 m
- retail108 m
- retail — Skin Vitality110 m
- retail — Dr. Bernstein Diet & Health Clinics111 m
- school — The Dalton School114 m
- parking lot122 m
- parking lot130 m
- retail — TCAF Shop131 m
- cafe — Coffee Balzac's Roasters137 m
- transit stop142 m
- retail — Canadian Tire Auto Service144 m
- parking lot148 m
- retail149 m
- retail — European Flooring150 m
- restaurant — d|bar168 m
- highway — Yonge Street168 m
- transit stop — Davenport Road170 m
- cafe — Coffee Lunar174 m
- restaurant — Kathmandu Restaurant175 m
- restaurant — Happy Burger178 m
- retail181 m
- retail — Cumberland Cannabis182 m
- parking lot182 m
- restaurant — The Pilot185 m
- retail — Otto185 m
- rail186 m
- rail186 m
- retail — Civello187 m
- restaurant — El Gourmet189 m
- restaurant — Subway189 m
- retail — Beloved Tan192 m
- retail — Piquadro192 m
- restaurant — Tao Tea Leaf194 m
- parking lot195 m
- highway — Yonge Street196 m
- retail — Expedia Cruises199 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality52th
- Edge activation86th
- Connectivity88th
- Amenity diversity68th
- Natural comfort38th
- Enclosure88th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Amsterdam SquareCivic Square44
- Alexander The Great ParketteUrban Plaza33
- Blythwood - Sherwood RavineRavine / Naturalized Park43
- Yonge Boulevard ParketteUrban Plaza41
- City Wide Open SpaceUrban Plaza38
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 48.7/100; cycling/trail 81.1/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of Frank Stollery Parkettematters. 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.
- 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.
- 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.