Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Civic SquareType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Banbury-Don Mills

Don-Leslie Park

Civic Square, below average overall (score 28, rank ~22th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Don-Leslie Park, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

Data updated

Don-Leslie Park scores 27.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and amenity diversity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forpublic eventsdowntown gathering

Area · 0.28 ha

What's here

Recreation
PlaygroundGarden
Facilities
Drinking waterBenches

Getting around

Paths

111 m of mapped path. Too little surface tagging to say how much is paved.

No steps mapped on the path network.

Seating

Typically 6 m to the nearest bench, and 12 m at the far end.

Arrival

Nearest parking 44 m away. 1 of 8 nearby lots reporting 1 accessible space.

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.

Vitality Score
28/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
27.8 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
22nd
of all 3,752 parks
Among Civic Square
11th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
44
median in small Civic Square (n=29)
Performance gap
-17
raw − expected · context confidence medium
strong underperformer

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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 28 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
Edge Activation0 · p28
-12.5
Connectivity15 · p12
-7.0
Natural Comfort26 · p11
-3.7
Amenity Diversity33 · p86
-3.3
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park66 · p65
+1.6

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

Don-Leslie Park works because its amenity diversity score (33) is in the top tier and its enclosure (66) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Don-Leslie Park is held back by natural comfort (26, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (26, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Don-Leslie Park is currently underperforming on both axes: neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

  • The park is enclosed by buildings (66) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.
  • 31 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • Strong underperformer relative to its cohort: raw 28 vs an expected 44 (gap -17).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Civic Square

Classified as Civic Square: tower-walled, low canopy (0%), tight frontage: reads as a civic square

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (retail) and 4 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% weightpartial 65%
15.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 1 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~210 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m1
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)0
Transit stops (400 m)8
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter210 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
33.4 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, bench, drinking_water, garden). 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 24%
25.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~302 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)302 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used20

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
66.0 / 100

53 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (20 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 31 tower); avg edge height 57.0 m (~19 floors); 25.3 buildings per 100 m of 210 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges dominated by towers; 31 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 20 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m53
Buildings within 50 m53
Avg edge height57.0 m (~19 floors)
Tallest edge building148.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)20
Low-rise (< 3 floors)2
Towers (≥ 13 floors)31
Frontage density25.26 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge38%
Tower share of edge59%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter210 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot. 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 (4 types · 21 records)

  • playground
  • bench
  • drinking water
  • garden

Nearby active-edge features (28)

  • parking lot44 m
  • parking lot49 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • retail: Toyota Lexus on the Park81 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • transit stop: 1103 Leslie Street126 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision127 m
  • parking lot129 m
  • parking lot133 m
  • transit stop: Eglinton Avenue East139 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East160 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East162 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East162 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision163 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • rail: Belleville Subdivision164 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton165 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton169 m
  • transit stop: Opposite 1103 Leslie Street169 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East174 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East178 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East179 m
  • transit stop: Sunnybrook Park182 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East183 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton194 m
  • rail: Line 5 Eglinton197 m
  • highway: Eglinton Avenue East198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDon-Leslie 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
    22th
  • Edge activation
    28th
  • Connectivity
    12th
  • Amenity diversity
    86th
  • Natural comfort
    11th
  • Enclosure
    65th

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 Don-Leslie Park 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.

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.

  • Activate the edges: encourage cafés, retail or community uses on the streets that face the park; replace blank or parking-lot edges where possible.
  • Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
  • 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: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.