Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Don Lake Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Tower-Community Green SpaceType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (ravine-leaning)Westminster-Branson

Don Lake Parkette

Tower-Community Green Space, above average overall (score 41, rank ~75th percentile). Strongest: natural comfort; weakest: amenity diversity.

Photo by Istvan Kelemen via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Don Lake Parkette scores 41.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: natural comfort and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fornearby residentstower-block recreation

Area · 0.15 ha

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 41 m away. None of the 15 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.

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
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 61%

Data Confidence
41.1 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
75th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Tower-Community Green Space
82nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
31
median in pocket Tower-Community Green Space (n=13)
Performance gap
+10
raw − expected · context confidence medium
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Don Lake Parkette, aerial top-down view
Top-down view. City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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 Diversity0 · p14
-10.0
Edge Activation18 · p78
-8.0
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Natural Comfort72 · p87
+3.3
Connectivity56 · p70
+1.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park58 · p32
+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

Don Lake Parkette works because its natural comfort score (72) is in the top tier and its edge activation (18) is also top quartile (39% tree canopy provides real shade).

What limits this park

Don Lake Parkette is held back by amenity diversity (0, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (72, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

Don Lake Parkette 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 tower-community green space typology (+10 vs the median in pocket Tower-Community Green Space).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Tower-Community Green Space

Classified as Tower-Community Green Space: 5 towers vs 0 mid-rise within 25 m on a 0.2 ha park

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
18.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop, 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: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
56.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 21 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 9 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~148 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)21
Transit stops (400 m)9 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 9 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.38
Park perimeter148 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightpartial 60%
72.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 39.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~446 m. Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage39.1%
Canopy area0.06 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)446 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)96.6
Sample points used23

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
57.5 / 100

13 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 8 low-rise, 5 tower); avg edge height 28.9 m (~10 floors); 8.8 buildings per 100 m of 148 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 5 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m13
Buildings within 50 m13
Avg edge height28.9 m (~10 floors)
Tallest edge building78.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)8
Towers (≥ 13 floors)5
Frontage density8.79 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge39%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter148 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (27)

  • transit stop: Antibes Drive at Bathurst Street38 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • transit stop: Bathurst Street at Antibes Drive52 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • transit stop: Antibes Drive at Plum Treeway78 m
  • transit stop: Bathurst Street at Drewry Avenue83 m
  • transit stop: Drewry Avenue at Bathurst Street85 m
  • retail: Outdoor Table Tennis91 m
  • parking lot98 m
  • parking lot105 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons111 m
  • parking lot121 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • parking lot131 m
  • parking lot135 m
  • parking lot137 m
  • parking lot151 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • retail: Autopro Bathurst Car Care157 m
  • parking lot160 m
  • transit stop: Drewry Avenue Opposite 100 Antibes Drive162 m
  • parking lot163 m
  • retail169 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • retail187 m
  • retail192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDon Lake Parkette
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
    75th
  • Edge activation
    78th
  • Connectivity
    70th
  • Amenity diversity
    14th
  • Natural comfort
    87th
  • Enclosure
    32th

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.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score37 / 100
36.8 / 100

p34 citywide

Volume (saturated)2
Density / ha40
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
10
total reviews
Photos uploaded
6
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.97 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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

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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.