Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Glenfield-Jane Heights (25)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Oakdale Park

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 37, rank ~61th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Oakdale Park scores 36.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (48). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban lifefamilies

Area · 1.46 ha

Vitality Score

37/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence

36.5 / 100

Citywide

61st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

47th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-1

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 37 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

Edge Activation0 · p57

-12.5

Enclosure / Eyes on Park79 · p83

+2.9

Amenity Diversity39 · p98

-2.3

Natural Comfort36 · p27

-2.1

Connectivity51 · p57

+0.2

Border Vacuum Risk48 (risk)

+0.2

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

Oakdale Park works because its amenity diversity score (39) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (79) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Oakdale Park is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (48).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (39, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Oakdale 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 (79) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.5 ha, framed by 5 mid-rise vs 4 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 0 active uses (none) and 6 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%

51.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 13 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 14 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~483 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2

Intersections within 100 m1

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)13

Transit stops (400 m)14

Estimated entrances5

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.41

Park perimeter483 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%

38.6 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, community_centre, fitness, playground, tennis). 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% weightpartial 45%

36.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~1.9% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~441 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (2.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)441 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon4

Tree density2.8 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used100

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

79.4 / 100

38 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 29 low-rise, 4 tower); avg edge height 13.0 m (~4 floors); 7.9 buildings per 100 m of 483 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); 4 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m38

Buildings within 50 m38

Avg edge height13.0 m (~4 floors)

Tallest edge building49.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5

Low-rise (< 3 floors)29

Towers (≥ 13 floors)4

Frontage density7.87 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge13%

Tower share of edge11%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter483 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

48.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. 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

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 (5 types · 5 records)

basketball
community centre
fitness
playground
tennis

Nearby active-edge features (20)

parking lot0 m
parking lot21 m
parking lot41 m
parking lot50 m
parking lot54 m
parking lot72 m
parking lot124 m
transit stop — Jane St at Eddystone Ave125 m
transit stop — Frith Road146 m
parking lot169 m
parking lot171 m
transit stop — Jane St at Eddystone Ave173 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Grandravine Dr184 m
parking lot185 m
parking lot194 m
parking lot195 m
transit stop — Grandravine Dr at Driftwood Ave196 m
parking lot196 m
parking lot196 m
parking lot197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
61th
Edge activation
57th
Connectivity
57th
Amenity diversity
98th
Natural comfort
27th
Enclosure
83th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Oriole Park - North YorkAthletic / Recreation Park35
Mcgregor ParkAthletic / Recreation Park35
Morse Street PlaygroundUrban Plaza40
Leaside ParkAthletic / Recreation Park33
Lionel Conacher ParkAthletic / Recreation Park42

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Toronto ZooWaterfront Park57
Mclevin Woods ParkRavine / Naturalized Park49
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51

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 Oakdale Parkmatters. 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 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.