David R. Miller Carhouse
Other, near the bottom of the city overall (score 24, rank ~10th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.
No photograph yet. If you have one of David R. Miller Carhouse, we would like to use it.
Submit a photoData updated
David R. Miller Carhouse scores 23.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (100). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.
Area · 8.57 ha
What's here
Getting around
553 m of mapped path, 100% paved.
No steps mapped on the path network.
Typically 107 m to the nearest bench, and 168 m at the far end.
Parking inside the park. None of the 13 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 66%
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.Grounds of a City building, not a designated park. It is left out of park rankings.
Near the park
Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.
Explain this score
Where did the 24 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
David R. Miller Carhouse works because its amenity diversity score (29) is above average and its connectivity (55) is also above-average.
What limits this park
David R. Miller Carhouse is held back by enclosure (35, bottom quartile); border-vacuum risk is also elevated (100).
Most distinctive characteristic
Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (35, bottom quartile).
Jacobs reading
David R. Miller Carhouse is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.
Tradeoffs
- Connectivity (55) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
Typology classification
Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (8.6 ha, 3 amenity types, frontage 1.0/100m)
Edge Activation
Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (retail, transit_stop) and 12 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.
Source: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.
Connectivity
Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 11 mapped paths/walkways and 14 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 11 street intersections within 100 m; 13 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~1,267 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.
Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.
Amenity Diversity
3 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, drinking_water, garden). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork near the park adds a bonus for the number of works.
Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.
Natural Comfort
Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~506 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).
Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.
Enclosure / Eyes on Park
13 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 12 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.7 m (~2 floors); 1.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,267 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.
Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.
Border Vacuum Risk
Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, Lake Shore Boulevard East, Lake Shore Boulevard East, parking_lot, Lake Shore Boulevard East, Lake Shore Boulevard East, Lake Shore Boulevard East, Lake Shore Boulevard East, Lake Shore Boulevard East. 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.
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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.
Amenities (3 types · 17 records)
- bench
- drinking water
- garden
Nearby active-edge features (36)
- parking lot0 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East17 m
- parking lot20 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East24 m
- transit stop: Leslie St at Commisioners St24 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East36 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East38 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East40 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East43 m
- transit stop46 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East46 m
- transit stop: Leslie St at Commisioners St48 m
- retail: Pedi N Nails60 m
- retail: LCBO63 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East76 m
- retail: Mark's76 m
- transit stop: Leslie St at Lake Shore Blvd E90 m
- parking lot90 m
- parking lot92 m
- retail: Canadian Tire100 m
- parking lot103 m
- parking lot110 m
- retail: Rogers113 m
- parking lot119 m
- retail: The Brick123 m
- transit stop133 m
- cafe: Tim Hortons134 m
- restaurant: Wendy's143 m
- highway: Lake Shore Boulevard East157 m
- parking lot161 m
- parking lot173 m
- parking lot174 m
- parking lot175 m
- transit stop: 595 Commissioners St181 m
- parking lot183 m
- parking lot195 m
Park profile
Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.
Citywide percentile ranks
Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.
- Overall vitality10th
- Edge activation62th
- Connectivity68th
- Amenity diversity83th
- Natural comfort9th
- Enclosure6th
Most similar parks
Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.
- Leslie Barns ParkCorridor / Linear Park27
- Woodbine RacetrackAthletic / Recreation Park28
- Downsview ParkCorridor / Linear Park31
- Mccleary ParkOther30
- Cherry Beach Sports FieldsWaterfront Park37
Most opposite parks
Furthest in metric space. Useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.
- Shaw ParkParkette70
- Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park76
- Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza68
- Leslie Grove ParkParkette73
- Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square73
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 David R. Miller Carhouse 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.
- Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.
- Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.
Data sources
- City of Toronto Open Data: Green SpacesPolygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
- OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.