Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Rockcliffe-Smythe (111)confidence moderate

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 49, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 48.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 1.81 ha

Vitality Score
49/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
48.9 / 100
Citywide
94th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
93rd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+12
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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.

Explain this score

Where did the 49 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 Diversity12 · p81
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p55
+1.4
Connectivity51 · p56
+0.1
Natural Comfort50 · p61
+0.0
Edge Activation50 · p96
+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

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its edge activation score (50) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds 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 (50, top decile).

Jacobs reading

FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+12 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.8 ha, framed by 2 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
50.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
50.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 14 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~547 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)14
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.73
Park perimeter547 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
11.9 / 100

1 distinct amenity types in the park (community_centre). 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% weightmeasured 75%
50.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.9% effective canopy (2.4% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 26.2% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~243 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage2.4%
Canopy area0.04 ha
Inside ravine system26.2%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)243 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon10
Tree density5.5 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)61.9
Sample points used126

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.2 / 100

53 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (2 mid-rise, 51 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.5 m (~2 floors); 9.7 buildings per 100 m of 547 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 2 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m53
Buildings within 50 m53
Avg edge height5.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building15.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)2
Low-rise (< 3 floors)51
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density9.69 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge4%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter547 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • community centre

Nearby active-edge features (10)

  • transit stop: Rockcliffe Boulevard8 m
  • transit stop: Alliance Avenue15 m
  • transit stop: Alliance Ave at Rockcliffe Blvd22 m
  • transit stop: Alliance Avenue29 m
  • transit stop: 425 Alliance Avenue68 m
  • transit stop70 m
  • transit stop: 400 Alliance Avenue103 m
  • transit stop: Caesar Avenue107 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • transit stop: Caesar Avenue148 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureFRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Grounds
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
    94th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    56th
  • Amenity diversity
    81th
  • Natural comfort
    61th
  • Enclosure
    55th

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 FRANK OKE SECONDARY SCHOOL - Building Groundsmatters. 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.

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.