Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Don Valley Brick Works, site photograph
Back to map
Waterfront ParkType:Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Park (large-scale)Leaside-Bennington

Don Valley Brick Works

Waterfront Park, in the top tier overall (score 51, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: amenity diversity; weakest: enclosure.

Photo by Michelle Lynch via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Data updated

Don Valley Brick Works scores 50.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (33.3). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwaterfront recreationlong walks

Area · 12.71 ha

What's here

Recreation
Off-leash dog area
Facilities
WashroomBenchesPublic artViewpoint

Getting around

Paths

3.9 km of mapped path, 19% paved.

4 flights of steps on the mapped network.

Seating

Not enough mapped seating to assess (14 benches mapped).

Arrival

Nearest parking 108 m away. None of the 3 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
51/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
50.7 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
94th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Waterfront Park
96th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
39
median in large Waterfront Park waterfront (n=62)
Performance gap
+12
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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Don Valley Brick Works, 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.

Public art in this park

Numbers match the pins on the map. Works near the park are within 30 m of its edge.

Explain this score

Where did the 51 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
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Edge Activation33 · p89
-4.2
Amenity Diversity41 · p92
-1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p58
+1.4
Natural Comfort51 · p65
+0.1
Connectivity51 · p60
+0.1

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 Valley Brick Works works because its amenity diversity score (41) is in the top tier and its edge activation (33) is also top quartile.

What limits this park

Don Valley Brick Works 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 (41, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Don Valley Brick Works 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 waterfront park typology (+12 vs the median in large Waterfront Park waterfront).

Typology classification

confidence 85%
Waterfront Parkalso reads as Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Waterfront Park: 8% water surface inside park. Secondary read: Ravine / Naturalized Park (100% ravine overlap, 5% canopy).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
33.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 3 active uses (cafe, community, retail) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%
50.6 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 62 mapped paths/walkways and 54 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 2 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~1,599 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0
Intersections within 100 m3
Paths/walkways (50 m)62
Sidewalk segments (50 m)54
Transit stops (400 m)2 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 2 bus)
Estimated entrances7
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00
Park perimeter1,599 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
41.1 / 100

5 distinct amenity types in the park (dog_area, washroom, art, bench, viewpoint). Diversity drives the score, so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use. 1 public artwork in the park adds a bonus for the number of works.

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

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
51.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 4.7% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; 8.2% water surface. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage4.7%
Canopy area0.60 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park8.2%
Nearest water (if outside park)0 m (inside)
Estimated green91.8%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)39.2
Sample points used255

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
63.9 / 100

47 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (11 mid-rise, 36 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 7.7 m (~3 floors); 2.9 buildings per 100 m of 1,599 m perimeter (moderate frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 11 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m47
Buildings within 50 m47
Avg edge height7.7 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building17.4 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)11
Low-rise (< 3 floors)36
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density2.94 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge23%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)2%
Park perimeter1,599 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

Park edges face the city. No significant border vacuum detected.

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 (5 types · 20 records)

  • dog area
  • washroom
  • art
  • bench
  • viewpoint

Nearby active-edge features (8)

  • community: The Kilns41 m
  • retail: Rec Hub59 m
  • cafe: Café Belong84 m
  • parking lot: East Parking Lot108 m
  • rail: GO Transit - Bala Subdivision108 m
  • parking lot: Central Parking Lot126 m
  • transit stop: Evergreen Brick Works163 m
  • parking lot: West Parking Lot185 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDon Valley Brick Works
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
    94th
  • Edge activation
    89th
  • Connectivity
    60th
  • Amenity diversity
    92th
  • Natural comfort
    65th
  • Enclosure
    58th

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.

medium-confidence match

“Natural 40-acre park on a former quarry site with trails, ponds & Toronto skyline views.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score49 / 100
48.6 / 100

p64 citywide · p60 within Waterfront Park

Volume (saturated)52
Density / ha30
Rating contribution93
Match dampener×0.85
Average rating
★ 4.7
out of 5
Ratings collected
532
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match medium (0.93 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 Valley Brick Works 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.