Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
OtherType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)

Rosedale North Park

Other, above average overall (score 44, rank ~83th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: connectivity.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Rosedale North Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Rosedale North Park scores 43.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: amenity diversity and natural comfort. Weakest: connectivity (14.7). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 3.33 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundSports fieldTennisBasketball
Facilities
WashroomPicnic areaShelterBenches

Getting around

Paths

408 m of mapped path, 100% paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Typically 50 m to the nearest bench, and 98 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 200 m away. None of the 1 nearby lot 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.

Vitality Score
44/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 49%

Data Confidence
43.9 / 100

Data confidence: low

Citywide
83rd
of all 3,753 parks
Among Other
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
30
median in medium Other (n=179)
Performance gap
+14
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

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
Connectivity15 · p10
-7.1
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Edge Activation33 · p89
-4.2
Amenity Diversity51 · p97
+0.2
Natural Comfort50 · p57
+0.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park50 · p16
+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

Rosedale North Park works because its amenity diversity score (51) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (33) is also top quartile (8 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Rosedale North Park is held back by connectivity (15, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (51, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Rosedale North Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (50) significantly outpaces connectivity (15): 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 30 for similar parks (medium Other) (gap +14).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (3.3 ha, 8 amenity types, frontage 0.0/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
33.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightpartial 45%
14.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 0 street intersections within 100 m; 9 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~727 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m0
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)9 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 9 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter727 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
50.8 / 100

8 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, bench, picnic, playground, shelter, sports_field, …). 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

15% weightinferred 15%
50.0 / 100

Natural Comfort requires inputs not yet loaded for this park (Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees). Score is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence. Read with caution.

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used232

Source: Not loaded yet: Treed Area / Ravine / Waterbodies / Street Trees. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightinferred 20%
50.0 / 100

No buildings within 50 m of this park edge, typical of ravines, watercourses, and hydro corridors. Enclosure is held at a neutral 50 with low confidence; for natural areas, this metric is essentially not applicable.

Buildings within 25 m0
Buildings within 50 m0
Avg edge height0.0 m (~0 floors)
Tallest edge building0.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)0
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density0.00 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)100%
Park perimeter727 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (no nearby buildings detected). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

Source: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (8 types · 14 records)

  • basketball
  • bench
  • picnic
  • playground
  • shelter
  • sports field
  • tennis
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (7)

  • transit stop: Atkinson Avenue Stop #33283 m
  • transit stop: Atkinson Avenue Stop #334422 m
  • transit stop: Atkinson Avenue / Dundurn Crescent74 m
  • transit stop: Atkinson Avenue / Flamingo Road114 m
  • transit stop: Atkinson Avenue / Rosedale Heights Drive160 m
  • transit stop: Atkinson Avenue / Rosedale Heights Drive199 m
  • parking lot200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureRosedale North Park
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    83th
  • Edge activation
    89th
  • Connectivity
    10th
  • Amenity diversity
    97th
  • Natural comfort
    57th
  • Enclosure
    16th

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 Rosedale North 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.

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
70%

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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.