Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Back to map
Urban Plazacluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Mount Pleasant West (104)confidence moderate

Davisville Tennis Club

Urban Plaza, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~91th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Davisville Tennis Club scores 47.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. 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 fordaily passing-throughpocket meetings

Area · 0.28 ha

What's here

Recreation
Tennis
Vitality Score
48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 65%

Data Confidence
47.5 / 100
Citywide
91st
of all 3,788 parks
Among Urban Plaza
84th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in small Urban Plaza (n=115)
Performance gap
+6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest 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.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 48 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 · p63
-7.6
Natural Comfort24 · p3
-4.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p89
+3.3
Edge Activation61 · p98
+2.7
Connectivity46 · p52
-0.8

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

Davisville Tennis Club works because its edge activation score (61) is one of the city's strongest and its enclosure (83) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Davisville Tennis Club is held back by natural comfort (24, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (61, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Davisville Tennis Club sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its urban plaza typology (+6 vs the median in small Urban Plaza).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Urban Plaza

Classified as Urban Plaza: 2832 m², paved (0% canopy), 23.2 buildings/100 m

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
60.9 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 20 active uses (transit_stop, retail, school, restaurant) 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%
45.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 2 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~237 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)2
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter2.11
Park perimeter237 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 (tennis). 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%
23.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~976 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)976 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used18

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
83.3 / 100

55 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (10 mid-rise, 45 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.6 m (~3 floors); 23.2 buildings per 100 m of 237 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 10 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m55
Buildings within 50 m55
Avg edge height7.6 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building22.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)10
Low-rise (< 3 floors)45
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density23.18 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge18%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter237 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 (1 types · 6 records)

  • tennis

Nearby active-edge features (48)

  • retail: Eye Studio28 m
  • restaurant: Subway31 m
  • restaurant: Starving Artist Waffles & Espresso36 m
  • restaurant: Millwood Bread & Butter38 m
  • retail: Saati Fine Jewellery38 m
  • retail: Second Nature Boutique43 m
  • retail: Mountain Convenience46 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Supreme53 m
  • retail: Pampered Paws56 m
  • retail: Neptune Hairstyling56 m
  • retail: Ixxy Vape62 m
  • restaurant: Krabi Thai Cuisine62 m
  • parking lot65 m
  • retail: Bob's Cleaners66 m
  • retail: E. Bapst Custom Upholstering71 m
  • restaurant: Hazel's Diner75 m
  • restaurant: Wild Chicory81 m
  • retail: Tech-Net Professional Auto Service82 m
  • transit stop: Davisville Avenue90 m
  • transit stop: Mount Pleasant Road West Side97 m
  • school: Toronto Prep School99 m
  • transit stop: Belsize Drive103 m
  • transit stop: Mount Pleasant Road104 m
  • transit stop: Mount Pleasant Road112 m
  • retail: CCMH Toronto Student Intern Clinic118 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • transit stop: Belsize Drive121 m
  • retail: Mabel’s Fables126 m
  • transit stop: Acacia Road126 m
  • transit stop: Davisville Avenue129 m
  • restaurant: The Belsize Public House131 m
  • retail: The Box Spot133 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • retail: Manderley Fine Furniture156 m
  • restaurant: Marigold Indian Bistro157 m
  • retail: Brentview Electronics161 m
  • retail: Durant Sessions172 m
  • restaurant: Instant Du Palais177 m
  • retail: Elly Amar Studio177 m
  • transit stop: Acacia Road178 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • retail: Livingstone & Co.181 m
  • retail: Frame Master182 m
  • parking lot189 m
  • retail: Royal Antiques Rug Gallery194 m
  • retail: Helene Clarkson200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDavisville Tennis Club
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
    91th
  • Edge activation
    98th
  • Connectivity
    52th
  • Amenity diversity
    63th
  • Natural comfort
    3th
  • Enclosure
    89th

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 Davisville Tennis Clubmatters. 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.

  • 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.