Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Henry Farm (53)confidence moderate

David Caplan Park

Urban Plaza, above average overall (score 43, rank ~80th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

David Caplan Park scores 42.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (19.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.23 ha

What's here

Recreation
Playground
Facilities
Drinking water
Vitality Score
43/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
42.5 / 100
Citywide
80th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
66th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
38
median in pocket Urban Plaza (n=360)
Performance gap
+5
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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 43 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 Diversity20 · p68
-6.0
Edge Activation30 · p87
-5.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park94 · p98
+4.3
Natural Comfort23 · p3
-4.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity48 · p55
-0.5

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 Caplan Park works because its enclosure score (94) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (30) is also top quartile (28 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

David Caplan Park is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (94, top decile).

Jacobs reading

David Caplan Park sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • 9 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2277 m², paved (0% canopy), 32.8 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
29.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (cafe, restaurant, transit_stop, retail) and 2 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%
47.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~198 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)17
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.02
Park perimeter198 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
19.9 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (playground, drinking_water). 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%
23.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1091 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)1,091 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
93.5 / 100

65 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (28 mid-rise, 28 low-rise, 9 tower); avg edge height 18.4 m (~6 floors); 32.8 buildings per 100 m of 198 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 9 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 28 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m65
Buildings within 50 m65
Avg edge height18.4 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building82.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)28
Low-rise (< 3 floors)28
Towers (≥ 13 floors)9
Frontage density32.77 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge43%
Tower share of edge14%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter198 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: 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 (2 types · 3 records)

  • playground
  • drinking water

Nearby active-edge features (26)

  • parking lot28 m
  • transit stop: Consumers Rd at Sheppard Ave East South Side31 m
  • transit stop: Yorkland Blvd (North) at Consumers Rd31 m
  • retail: FYidoctors58 m
  • parking lot70 m
  • restaurant: Willie Stouts Pub and Grill71 m
  • cafe: Beiruti Grand Café84 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue at Consumers Road East Side103 m
  • restaurant: Lara's Restaurant108 m
  • restaurant: Shawarma Royale113 m
  • retail: Super Vape123 m
  • transit stop: Sheppard Avenue at Brian Drive West Side125 m
  • parking lot131 m
  • transit stop: 280 Yorkland Blvd (North)136 m
  • parking lot140 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • restaurant: Umami House152 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • cafe: Jasmine Sweets166 m
  • restaurant: Aladdin Shawarma House168 m
  • transit stop: 279 Yorkland Blvd (North)177 m
  • cafe: Aashro Cafe180 m
  • retail: Mercator Euro Mini Mart186 m
  • cafe: Sunny Coffee Shop187 m
  • retail: Caspian Supermarket193 m
  • parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDavid Caplan 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
    80th
  • Edge activation
    87th
  • Connectivity
    55th
  • Amenity diversity
    68th
  • Natural comfort
    3th
  • Enclosure
    98th

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 David Caplan 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.

  • 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: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. 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.