Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Skymark Park, site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Hillcrest Village (48)confidence moderate

Skymark Park

Other, one of the city's strongest overall (score 53, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Mariela Bedoya via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Skymark Park scores 52.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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 forvaries (see metrics)

Area · 3.26 ha

Vitality Score
53/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
52.7 / 100
Citywide
98th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
100th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
28
median in medium Other (n=60)
Performance gap
+25
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.
Skymark Park, 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 53 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 · p71
-7.6
Connectivity70 · p91
+4.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p45
+1.2
Natural Comfort57 · p71
+1.0
Edge Activation51 · p96
+0.3

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

Skymark Park works because its edge activation score (51) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (70) is also top decile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Skymark 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 edge activation (51, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Skymark 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 53 versus an expected 28 for similar parks (medium Other) (gap +25).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (3.3 ha, 1 amenity types, frontage 4.3/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
51.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 18 active uses (retail, cafe, transit_stop) and 3 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%
70.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 27 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 33 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~1,040 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m10
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)27
Transit stops (400 m)33
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.96
Park perimeter1,040 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 (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% weightmeasured 75%
56.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 17.4% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~768 m; 17 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.2/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage17.4%
Canopy area0.57 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)768 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon17
Tree density5.2 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)66.7
Sample points used218

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.9 / 100

45 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 43 low-rise, 2 tower); avg edge height 8.4 m (~3 floors); 4.3 buildings per 100 m of 1,040 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); 2 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m45
Buildings within 50 m45
Avg edge height8.4 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building89.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)43
Towers (≥ 13 floors)2
Frontage density4.33 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge4%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,040 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Skymark Park. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that 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 (1 types · 1 records)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (47)

  • parking lot: Skymark Park0 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Finch Avenue East4 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Finch Avenue East4 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue at Don Mills Road West Side5 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road / Premier Davis Boulevard13 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road / Premier Davis Boulevard18 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Skymark Drive30 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Premier Davis Boulevard33 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Premier Davis Boulevard34 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue at Don Mills Road35 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Skymark Drive36 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons42 m
  • retail: Circle K47 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Finch Avenue East63 m
  • retail: Mr. Lube64 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Finch Avenue East65 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue at Don Mills Road75 m
  • retail: No Frills77 m
  • transit stop: Finch Avenue at Don Mills Road East Side85 m
  • parking lot100 m
  • retail: One's Better Living114 m
  • restaurant: KFC116 m
  • restaurant: Deer Garden Signatures122 m
  • parking lot123 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Bedle Avenue124 m
  • parking lot124 m
  • restaurant: Mizuki Sushi130 m
  • restaurant: Subway136 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Bedle Avenue136 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • retail: Convenience Flowers146 m
  • restaurant: Vietnamese Delight150 m
  • restaurant: Tasty BBQ Seafood Restaurant161 m
  • transit stop: Brahms Avenue161 m
  • transit stop: Linus Road163 m
  • retail: Skymark Cleaners170 m
  • restaurant: Grass Mountain Villa Seafood175 m
  • retail: Hair Focus181 m
  • parking lot182 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road at Bedle Avenue183 m
  • retail: Freedom Mobile185 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • parking lot192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureSkymark 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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    96th
  • Connectivity
    91th
  • Amenity diversity
    71th
  • Natural comfort
    71th
  • Enclosure
    45th

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 score32 / 100
32.0 / 100

p21 citywide

Volume (saturated)9
Density / ha13
Rating contribution83
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.3
out of 5
Ratings collected
47
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
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 Skymark 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.

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.