
Four Oaks Gate Park
Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 50, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.
Photo by Selvaganesh G (Sega) via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Four Oaks Gate Park scores 50.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (25). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 0.75 ha
What's here
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%
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 50 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
Four Oaks Gate Park works because its connectivity score (68) is in the top tier and its edge activation (25) is also top quartile (14 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).
What limits this park
Four Oaks Gate Park 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 connectivity (68, top quartile).
Jacobs reading
Four Oaks Gate Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Performance in context
- This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 50 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +13).
Typology classification
Classified as Parkette: small (7482 m²) with strong building frontage (28.7 per 100 m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 24 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~471 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
3 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, picnic). 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
Natural-comfort components for this park: ~18.9% effective canopy (7.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~412 m; 27 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (27.0/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
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
135 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 135 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.2 m (~2 floors); 28.7 buildings per 100 m of 471 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)
Border Vacuum Risk
Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.
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 (3 types · 5 records)
- playground
- bench
- picnic
Nearby active-edge features (5)
- transit stop: Athlone Road0 m
- transit stop: Northbrook Road75 m
- transit stop: Derwyn Road183 m
- transit stop: Derwyn Road192 m
- transit stop197 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality94th
- Edge activation84th
- Connectivity89th
- Amenity diversity83th
- Natural comfort73th
- Enclosure55th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Indian Line ParkRavine / Naturalized Park50
- Gulliver ParkNeighbourhood Park50
- Briar Crest ParkNeighbourhood Park46
- Highland Creek Community ParkRavine / Naturalized Park50
- Stonehouse ParkNeighbourhood Park48
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park21
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park18
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Visitor signals
Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.
p41 citywide · p40 within Parkette
Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
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 Four Oaks Gate 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.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.
- Neighbourhood Profiles(Pending) Equity context proxy.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.