Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Dufferin Grove Park — site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Dufferin Grove (83)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Dufferin Grove Park

Athletic / Recreation Park, one of the city's strongest overall (score 63, rank ~100th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Enerio Rodriguez via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Dufferin Grove Park scores 63.4 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (44.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:organised sportactive recreation

Area · 5.33 ha

Vitality Score
63/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 70%

Data Confidence
63.4 / 100
Citywide
100th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
42
median in Athletic / Recreation Park (n=85)
Performance gap
+22
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Street context

Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.

Top-down view

cached 5/9/2026

City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above.

Dufferin Grove Park — aerial / top-down view

City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer

Explain this score

Where did the 63 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
Connectivity82 · p99
+6.3
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park83 · p88
+3.3
Amenity Diversity44 · p100
-1.1
Edge Activation53 · p97
+0.7
Natural Comfort52 · p65
+0.4

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

Dufferin Grove Park works because its amenity diversity score (44) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (82) is also top decile (6 distinct amenity types support different kinds of use).

What limits this park

Dufferin Grove Park doesn't have a clear weakness — every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (44, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Dufferin Grove Park is a balanced hybrid — strong urban integration (73) AND meaningful natural comfort (63). Rare in Toronto's catalogue.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (82) significantly outpaces natural comfort (52) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • Strong physical conditions (score 63) but weak observed activity signals (14) — 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.
  • High connectivity (82) coexists with little programming evidence — easy to reach, but no recurring civic life detected.

Performance in context

  • This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 63 versus an expected 42 for similar parks (Athletic / Recreation Park) (gap +22).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, skatepark, tennis). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (5.3 ha, framed by 34 mid-rise vs 1 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
52.9 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 20 active uses (retail, transit_stop, cafe) 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

20% weightmeasured 85%
81.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 25 mapped paths/walkways and 50 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 19 street intersections within 100 m; 27 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 17 estimated access points across ~985 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m17
Intersections within 100 m19
Paths/walkways (50 m)25
Sidewalk segments (50 m)50
Transit stops (400 m)27
Estimated entrances17
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.73
Park perimeter985 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
44.3 / 100

6 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, picnic, playground, skatepark, tennis, washroom). 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% weightpartial 60%
52.4 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~16.8% effective canopy (10.9% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 128 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (24.0/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage10.9%
Canopy area0.58 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon128
Tree density24.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)49.5
Sample points used258

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
82.9 / 100

141 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (34 mid-rise, 106 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 8.4 m (~3 floors); 14.3 buildings per 100 m of 985 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 34 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m141
Buildings within 50 m141
Avg edge height8.4 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building44.9 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)34
Low-rise (< 3 floors)106
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density14.32 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge24%
Tower share of edge1%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter985 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" — they 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 (6 types · 6 records)

  • basketball
  • picnic
  • playground
  • skatepark
  • tennis
  • washroom

Nearby active-edge features (80)

  • transit stop — Dufferin St at Dufferin Park Ave2 m
  • transit stop — Dufferin St at Sylvan Ave3 m
  • transit stop — Sylvan Avenue17 m
  • transit stop — Dufferin Mall22 m
  • transit stop — Dufferin St at Dufferin Park Ave33 m
  • retail — Marshalls37 m
  • parking lot46 m
  • retail — Urban Customz47 m
  • parking lot — Dufferin Mall Parking (two levels)54 m
  • cafe — Big Orange56 m
  • retail — MobileCare73 m
  • retail — Portage75 m
  • retail — Dollarama77 m
  • retail — Mark's77 m
  • parking lot — Dufferin Mall Parking77 m
  • retail — Express Yourself80 m
  • retail — LinsonQ82 m
  • retail — Hearing Solutions83 m
  • retail — Mas Man84 m
  • retail — Karen's Fine Jewellery87 m
  • retail — Ardene91 m
  • retail — INS Market92 m
  • retail97 m
  • cafe — Tim Hortons101 m
  • retail — Eye on Optical108 m
  • parking lot109 m
  • retail — Champs114 m
  • retail — Gap114 m
  • restaurant — McDonald's114 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • restaurant — Mac's Sushi120 m
  • transit stop — Croatia Street121 m
  • restaurant — KFC123 m
  • retail — Shefield Express128 m
  • retail — Trade Secrets136 m
  • retail — Batteries N' Gadgets139 m
  • retail — Miniso140 m
  • retail — Pandora147 m
  • retail — April Sweets156 m
  • retail — Kibo Market156 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Pizza159 m
  • restaurant — Villa Madina159 m
  • restaurant — New York Fries159 m
  • retail — Foot Locker160 m
  • restaurant — Subway160 m
  • retail — Aura Fragrances160 m
  • retail — Pasito161 m
  • retail — Journeys161 m
  • retail — La Senza161 m
  • retail — Call It Spring161 m
  • retail — claire's161 m
  • retail — Soft Moc161 m
  • retail — Aldo161 m
  • retail — Tommy Hilfiger161 m
  • retail — Peoples Jewellers162 m
  • retail — Stars162 m
  • retail — Suzy Shier Le Chateau162 m
  • retail — Best Buy Mobile163 m
  • restaurant — Shanghai 360163 m
  • retail — Telus165 m
  • restaurant — Mr. Pretzels165 m
  • restaurant — Cinnabon166 m
  • retail — Michael Hill166 m
  • retail — Swarovski166 m
  • retail — Lids168 m
  • retail — Fido168 m
  • retail — The Soap Tree168 m
  • restaurant — Thaï Express169 m
  • retail — Freedom Mobile169 m
  • retail — Goodtime Jewellers169 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • retail — Casefit169 m
  • retail — WirelessWave169 m
  • retail — Face Off169 m
  • retail — The Brow Boutique169 m
  • retail — Kalamata169 m
  • retail — Tbooth Wireless169 m
  • restaurant — Tanghulu Tanghulu170 m
  • retail — Tbooth Wireless170 m
  • retail — Virgin Plus170 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDufferin Grove Park

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    100th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    99th
  • Amenity diversity
    100th
  • Natural comfort
    65th
  • Enclosure
    88th

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.

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.

Large park with an ice rink & playground, plus basketball, picnic areas & a weekly farmer's market. — Google editorial summary

Visitor signal score
82/ 100
82.4 / 100

p96 citywide · p98 within Athletic / Recreation Park

Volume (saturated)81
Density / ha80
Rating contribution88
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.5
out of 5
Ratings collected
2,077
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match unverified (0.00 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.

confidence 65%
Overall activity
14/ 100
13.8 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
32real
Temporal rhythm
13real
Pedestrian / cycling flow
8unknown
Cultural significance
36real

Activity reading: 782 public mentions. The strongest signal is public attention / mentions. Source coverage: google-places, wikipedia.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of Dufferin Grove 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

What would improve this park?

Generated from the weakest measured dimensions — a starting point, not a prescription.

  • Diversify what people can do in the park — playground, washroom, water, shade, performance, sport, garden — even small additions raise this score.

Data sources

  • City of Toronto Open Data — Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types.
  • 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.