Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Keele - Mulock Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Junction Area (90)confidence moderate

Keele - Mulock Parkette

Parkette, one of the city's strongest overall (score 54, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by phraseography via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Keele - Mulock Parkette scores 54.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.13 ha

Vitality Score
54/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
54.4 / 100
Citywide
98th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Parkette (n=287)
Performance gap
+23
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Keele - Mulock Parkette, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Explain this score

Where did the 54 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 Diversity21 · p89
-5.8
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Connectivity73 · p93
+4.5
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p54
+1.4
Natural Comfort42 · p41
-1.3
Edge Activation52 · p97
+0.6

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

Keele - Mulock Parkette works because its edge activation score (52) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (73) is also top decile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Keele - Mulock Parkette 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 (52, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Keele - Mulock Parkette sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (73) significantly outpaces natural comfort (42): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort: raw 54 versus an expected 31 for similar parks (pocket Parkette) (gap +23).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (1339 m²) with strong building frontage (16.9 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
52.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 2 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%
72.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 6 mapped paths/walkways and 11 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 26 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 6 estimated access points across ~178 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m12
Intersections within 100 m13
Paths/walkways (50 m)6
Sidewalk segments (50 m)11
Transit stops (400 m)26
Estimated entrances6
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter6.75
Park perimeter178 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, playground). 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% weightinferred 36%
41.5 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~7.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~681 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.0/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)681 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon10
Tree density10.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
63.9 / 100

30 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 30 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.1 m (~2 floors); 16.9 buildings per 100 m of 178 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m30
Buildings within 50 m30
Avg edge height6.1 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)30
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density16.88 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter178 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 (2 types · 2 records)

  • basketball
  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (45)

  • retail: New Era Flooring1 m
  • restaurant: Swiss Chalet34 m
  • restaurant: Harvey's36 m
  • transit stop42 m
  • retail: City South Fine Cars Inc.44 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue West52 m
  • parking lot79 m
  • transit stop: St. Clair Avenue West79 m
  • retail: BathDepot82 m
  • retail: PC Shop Computers85 m
  • retail: Assured Collision Centre85 m
  • parking lot86 m
  • retail: Sherwin-Williams88 m
  • retail: Road Auto & Tire Center Inc.90 m
  • retail: Mark's97 m
  • restaurant: Junction Food Co.112 m
  • transit stop: Keele Street113 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision114 m
  • transit stop: Keele Street121 m
  • retail: Healthy Planet131 m
  • transit stop: Weston Rd at St. Clair Ave W134 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision134 m
  • retail: Freedom Mobile140 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision140 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision143 m
  • retail: Subtext Coffee Roasters143 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • parking lot148 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • transit stop: Keele St at West Toronto St153 m
  • retail: Fairstone Financial155 m
  • retail: Esso163 m
  • retail: Sleep Country163 m
  • retail: Michaels166 m
  • transit stop: West Toronto St at Keele St166 m
  • transit stop: West Toronto St at Keele St177 m
  • retail: Fire & Flower Cannabis179 m
  • retail: Old Navy180 m
  • rail: MacTier Subdivision181 m
  • transit stop: Keele St at West Toronto St183 m
  • rail: Weston Subdivision185 m
  • restaurant: Chipotle186 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • retail: Rogers/Fido191 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureKeele - Mulock Parkette
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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    93th
  • Amenity diversity
    89th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    54th

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.

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.

Visitor signal score42 / 100
42.3 / 100

p49 citywide · p48 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)3
Density / ha54
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
16
total reviews
Photos uploaded
8
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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 Keele - Mulock Parkettematters. 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.

  • 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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • 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.