Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Banbury-Don Mills (42)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

DON MILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 34, rank ~51th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

DON MILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds scores 34.3 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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 for:daily urban life

Area · 7.78 ha

Vitality Score

34/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence

34.3 / 100

Citywide

51st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

36th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)

Performance gap

-0

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 34 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 · p46

-12.5

Amenity Diversity12 · p81

-7.6

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Enclosure / Eyes on Park70 · p69

+2.0

Natural Comfort38 · p33

-1.8

Connectivity58 · p70

+1.5

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

DON MILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds works because its amenity diversity score (12) is above average and its connectivity (58) is also above-average.

What limits this park

DON MILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (38, below-average)— only 2% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high amenity diversity (12, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

DON MILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

The park is enclosed by buildings (70) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 7.8 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop) and 7 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%

57.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 28 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~1,178 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)28

Transit stops (400 m)18

Estimated entrances1

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.34

Park perimeter1,178 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 (community_centre). 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% weightmeasured 75%

38.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 2.2% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~415 m; 26 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (3.3/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage2.2%

Canopy area0.17 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)415 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon26

Tree density3.3 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)15.4

Sample points used270

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

70.4 / 100

84 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 69 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.6 m (~2 floors); 7.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,178 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m84

Buildings within 50 m84

Avg edge height6.6 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building20.4 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)15

Low-rise (< 3 floors)69

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.13 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge18%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,178 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" — 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 (1 types · 1 records)

community centre

Nearby active-edge features (33)

parking lot0 m
transit stop — 16 The Donway East - Opposite Don Mills Collegiate24 m
transit stop — The Donway East25 m
transit stop — Greenland Rd - Donway Place28 m
transit stop — The Donway East30 m
parking lot37 m
parking lot52 m
parking lot61 m
transit stop — The Donway E at Lawrence Avenue East62 m
parking lot65 m
parking lot83 m
parking lot95 m
transit stop — Greenland Road98 m
parking lot108 m
parking lot109 m
parking lot111 m
parking lot111 m
parking lot113 m
parking lot116 m
parking lot118 m
parking lot119 m
parking lot121 m
transit stop — Woodcliff Place122 m
parking lot140 m
parking lot154 m
parking lot155 m
parking lot157 m
parking lot167 m
parking lot170 m
transit stop — Wingreen Court South Side172 m
retail — Super Stop181 m
rail — GO Transit - Bala Subdivision185 m
transit stop — Don Mills Road192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
51th
Edge activation
46th
Connectivity
70th
Amenity diversity
81th
Natural comfort
33th
Enclosure
69th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Mimico Waterfront ParkWaterfront Park27
Aldwych ParkUrban Plaza37
Gamble ParkUrban Plaza38
Shepton Way ParkParkette37
Arlington ParketteUrban Plaza38

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60
Simcoe ParkTower-Community Green Space51

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 MILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL - Building Groundsmatters. 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.

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.