Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Rockcliffe-Smythe (111)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 49, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 48.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 1.81 ha

Vitality Score

49/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

48.9 / 100

Citywide

94th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

93rd

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

+12

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 49 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 Diversity12 · p81

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p55

+1.4

Connectivity51 · p56

+0.1

Natural Comfort50 · p61

+0.0

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

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (50) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds 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

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+12 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.8 ha, framed by 2 mid-rise vs 0 towers

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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%

50.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 14 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~547 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m4

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)14

Transit stops (400 m)16

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.73

Park perimeter547 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). Diversity, not raw count, 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

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%

50.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.9% effective canopy (2.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 26.2% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~243 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage2.4%

Canopy area0.04 ha

Inside ravine system26.2%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)243 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon10

Tree density5.5 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)61.9

Sample points used126

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

64.2 / 100

53 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 51 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 9.7 buildings per 100 m of 547 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m53

Buildings within 50 m53

Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building15.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)2

Low-rise (< 3 floors)51

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density9.69 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge4%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter547 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 (1 types · 1 records)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (10)

transit stop — Rockcliffe Boulevard8 m
transit stop — Alliance Avenue15 m
transit stop — Alliance Ave at Rockcliffe Blvd22 m
transit stop — Alliance Avenue29 m
transit stop — 425 Alliance Avenue68 m
transit stop70 m
transit stop — 400 Alliance Avenue103 m
transit stop — Caesar Avenue107 m
parking lot110 m
transit stop — Caesar Avenue148 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
94th
Edge activation
96th
Connectivity
56th
Amenity diversity
81th
Natural comfort
61th
Enclosure
55th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Elijah ParkCorridor / Linear Park50
Elm Park - YorkUrban Plaza47
Hickorynut ParketteParkette47
Maple Claire ParkUrban Plaza48
Trca Lands ( 62)Waterfront Park47

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.

confidence 50%

Overall activity

7/ 100

6.6 / 100

Programming / events

0unknown

Social attention

8real

Temporal rhythm

13real

Pedestrian / cycling flow

8unknown

Cultural significance

15unknown

Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Groundsmatters. 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.

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.