Dane Parkette
Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 50, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.
Photo by Flaviu Purcarin via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026
Dane Parkette scores 50 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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.
Area · 1.05 ha
What's here
Getting around
384 m of mapped path, 100% paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
Not enough mapped seating to assess (1 bench mapped).
Nearest parking 61 m away. None of the 12 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.
Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.
Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%
Data confidence: moderate
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
Dane Parkette works because its enclosure score (87) is in the top tier and its edge activation (39) is also top decile (67 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).
What limits this park
Dane Parkette is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (87, top decile).
Jacobs reading
Dane Parkette sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (61) significantly outpaces natural comfort (36): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
- 32 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.
- Strong physical conditions (score 50) but weak observed activity signals (8). The model says this should work, but events, mentions, and counters say it isn't being used at the level the urban form would predict.
Performance in context
- A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+11 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).
Typology classification
Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.0 ha, framed by 67 mid-rise vs 32 towers
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) 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
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~454 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
2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench). 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: ~4.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1474 m; 6 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.7/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: 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
145 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (67 mid-rise, 46 low-rise, 32 tower); avg edge height 23.9 m (~8 floors); 32.0 buildings per 100 m of 454 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 32 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 67 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 (2 types · 3 records)
- playground
- bench
Nearby active-edge features (36)
- parking lot61 m
- retail: 180 Smoke Vape Store76 m
- restaurant: Subway79 m
- retail: Toronto Cabinetry79 m
- retail: Cash Money79 m
- retail: Variety Plus79 m
- parking lot86 m
- restaurant: Willy's Jerk86 m
- parking lot88 m
- retail: Elegant Spa89 m
- retail: Century Nails90 m
- retail: Tantasia91 m
- transit stop: Dane Avenue92 m
- transit stop: Via Bagnato113 m
- retail: INS Market115 m
- transit stop: Lawrence Avenue West116 m
- transit stop: Apex Road117 m
- retail: Studio L127 m
- transit stop: Dufferin Street128 m
- transit stop: Corona Street134 m
- transit stop: Lawrence Avenue West145 m
- parking lot146 m
- restaurant: Mirra's Place147 m
- retail: F&S Collectibles154 m
- parking lot157 m
- parking lot163 m
- parking lot165 m
- parking lot165 m
- retail: Barber Shop166 m
- retail: Sassi Nails170 m
- parking lot170 m
- retail: Crowned172 m
- parking lot178 m
- parking lot185 m
- parking lot186 m
- transit stop: Dufferin Street188 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality93th
- Edge activation91th
- Connectivity78th
- Amenity diversity72th
- Natural comfort26th
- Enclosure93th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Grafton Avenue ParkUrban Plaza43
- Seaton ParkUrban Plaza51
- Bright Street PlaygroundUrban Plaza51
- Glenn Gould ParkUrban Plaza47
- SIR WILLIAM CAMPBELL HOUSE MUSEUM - Building GroundsUrban Plaza45
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
- Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
- Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
- Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25
- 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.
p29 citywide · p25 within Neighbourhood Park
Source: Google Places API · match high (0.96 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.
Human activity signals
Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores. Partial coverage, partial confidence.
Activity reading: no inputs available. The strongest signal is consistent rhythm across the day. Source coverage: google-places.
Does this score feel accurate?
Your read of Dane Parkette matters. 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.
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.