Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Glen Davis Ravine, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)East End-Danforth (62)confidence moderate

Glen Davis Ravine

Ravine / Naturalized Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~82th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Phil Marion via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Glen Davis Ravine scores 41.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (30). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forescape into nature

Area · 0.22 ha

Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 57%

Data Confidence
41.8 / 100
Citywide
82nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
84th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
33
median in pocket Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=252)
Performance gap
+9
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.
Glen Davis Ravine, 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.

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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 · p68
-10.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park92 · p97
+4.2
Natural Comfort34 · p18
-2.4
Border Vacuum Risk30 (risk)
+2.0
Connectivity42 · p38
-1.7
Edge Activation49 · p95
-0.3

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

Glen Davis Ravine works because its enclosure score (92) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (49) is also top decile (27 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Glen Davis Ravine is held back by natural comfort (34, bottom quartile): only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (30).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high enclosure (92, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Glen Davis Ravine 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 ravine / naturalized park typology (+9 vs the median in pocket Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Parkalso reads as Corridor / Linear Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 0% canopy. Secondary read: Corridor / Linear Park (shape elongation 3.1× a circle of equal area).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
48.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 11 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 2 dead/hostile uses (highway, 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%
41.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 25 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 1 estimated access points across ~510 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)5
Transit stops (400 m)25
Estimated entrances1
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.20
Park perimeter510 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded. Score is 0 until inventory is loaded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightinferred 36%
34.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~515 m. Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)515 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used15

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
91.9 / 100

90 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (27 mid-rise, 63 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 9.1 m (~3 floors); 17.7 buildings per 100 m of 510 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 27 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m90
Buildings within 50 m90
Avg edge height9.1 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building28.0 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)27
Low-rise (< 3 floors)63
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density17.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge30%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter510 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights)

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
30.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Kingston Road. 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (26)

  • retail: Wine Rack29 m
  • highway: Kingston Road43 m
  • transit stop: Kingston Road50 m
  • transit stop: Southwood Drive50 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Hut57 m
  • retail: Cycle Solutions59 m
  • transit stop: Kingston Road65 m
  • restaurant: Seaspray66 m
  • parking lot66 m
  • cafe: Tim Hortons75 m
  • transit stop: Main Street80 m
  • transit stop: Main Street83 m
  • transit stop: Kingston Road87 m
  • retail: The Big Carrot101 m
  • school: Bumblebee Academy108 m
  • transit stop: Lyall Avenue109 m
  • retail: CE Bon Variety118 m
  • restaurant: The Kingston House Resturaunt127 m
  • highway: Kingston Road134 m
  • transit stop: Benlamond Avenue136 m
  • parking lot143 m
  • highway: Kingston Road159 m
  • transit stop: Lee Avenue181 m
  • transit stop: Lee Avenue184 m
  • transit stop185 m
  • parking lot197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureGlen Davis Ravine
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
    82th
  • Edge activation
    95th
  • Connectivity
    38th
  • Amenity diversity
    68th
  • Natural comfort
    18th
  • Enclosure
    97th

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.

flagged for review
Visitor signal score33 / 100
33.0 / 100

p24 citywide · p33 within Ravine / Naturalized Park

Volume (saturated)18
Density / ha84
Rating contribution93
Match dampener×0.55
Average rating
★ 4.7
out of 5
Ratings collected
110
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors
  • match flagged for human review, confidence dampened

Source: Google Places API · match needs_review (0.47 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 Glen Davis Ravinematters. 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.
  • 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.
  • Mitigate border vacuums (highways, rail, parking) with active programming on the still-permeable edges and treat the hostile edge as a design challenge.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • 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.