Oakridge Park
Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~63th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: edge activation.
No photograph yet. If you have one of Oakridge Park, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoAerial, City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026
Data updated
Oakridge Park scores 37.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 1.79 ha
What's here
Getting around
286 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
Typically 17 m to the nearest bench, and 24 m at the far end.
Parking inside the park. None of the 2 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.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
Data confidence: moderate
Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.
Loading map…
The parks map is loading.Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).
Explain this score
Where did the 38 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
Oakridge Park works because its amenity diversity score (51) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (66) is also top quartile (8 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).
What limits this park
Oakridge Park is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile): the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (51, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Oakridge Park 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 (68) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
- High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (100): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.
Performance in context
- Citywide rank is high (63rd) but typology rank is more modest (37th): the strength likely comes from the dataset average pulling lower than this typology’s baseline.
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.8 ha, framed by 3 mid-rise vs 0 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 15 active uses (transit_stop, retail, restaurant) and 9 dead/hostile uses (highway, rail, 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.
Connectivity
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 19 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 12 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 3 estimated access points across ~563 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
8 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, tennis, bench, fountain, garden, picnic, …). Diversity 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. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 12.7% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~810 m; 31 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (17.3/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
88 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 85 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 15.6 buildings per 100 m of 563 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Kingston Subdivision, Danforth Avenue, parking_lot, Kingston Subdivision, Kingston Subdivision, Danforth Avenue, Danforth Avenue. 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.
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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.
Amenities (8 types · 19 records)
- playground
- tennis
- bench
- fountain
- garden
- picnic
- sports field
- table tennis
Nearby active-edge features (40)
- parking lot0 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue9 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue9 m
- retail18 m
- retail27 m
- retail: 46 Tattoo27 m
- retail28 m
- retail28 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision28 m
- restaurant: Chopstick Foods30 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision32 m
- rail: Kingston Subdivision32 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue36 m
- transit stop37 m
- transit stop39 m
- retail44 m
- transit stop49 m
- retail: Formula 1 Religious Supplies61 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue62 m
- retail66 m
- retail70 m
- restaurant: James Black Bear Pub76 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue81 m
- transit stop91 m
- retail104 m
- restaurant: Adda107 m
- restaurant: Pitha Ghor & Sweets109 m
- retail112 m
- transit stop113 m
- restaurant: Sedaghat Restaurant115 m
- restaurant: Reginos Pizza133 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue134 m
- cafe: The Cozy Bean139 m
- parking lot149 m
- retail: Princes Pastries159 m
- transit stop170 m
- transit stop173 m
- restaurant: Dairy Queen181 m
- retail: Carstar185 m
- highway: Danforth Avenue199 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality63th
- Edge activation24th
- Connectivity86th
- Amenity diversity97th
- Natural comfort67th
- Enclosure68th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Carlton ParkNeighbourhood Park44
- Eglinton FlatsRavine / Naturalized Park37
- Elie Wiesel ParkNeighbourhood Park41
- Amos Waites ParkNeighbourhood Park39
- Bellbury ParkNeighbourhood Park44
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Arnell PlazaCivic Square50
- ALEX WILSON COMMUNITY GARDEN - Open Green SpaceUrban Plaza59
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
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 Oakridge Park 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.
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.
- 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: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
- 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.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.