Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Duncairn Park, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Banbury-Don Mills (42)confidence moderate

Duncairn Park

Corridor / Linear Park, above average overall (score 41, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Christian Haikala via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Duncairn Park scores 41 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and natural comfort. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 6.01 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
41.0 / 100
Citywide
79th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
81st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
35
median in large Corridor / Linear Park (n=19)
Performance gap
+6
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.
Duncairn Park, 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 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
Edge Activation0 · p50
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p82
-7.6
Connectivity80 · p99
+6.0
Natural Comfort66 · p80
+2.4
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p50
+1.3

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

Duncairn Park works because its connectivity score (80) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (12) is also top quartile (29 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 29 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

Duncairn Park's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (80, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Duncairn Park 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 (63) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its corridor / linear park typology (+6 vs the median in large Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 4.7× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (6.0 ha, framed by 15 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 2 active uses (transit_stop) and 6 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%
79.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 38 mapped paths/walkways and 94 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 29 street intersections within 100 m; 29 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 35 estimated access points across ~4,057 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m21
Intersections within 100 m29
Paths/walkways (50 m)38
Sidewalk segments (50 m)94
Transit stops (400 m)29
Estimated entrances35
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.52
Park perimeter4,057 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 (playground). 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%
66.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 26.9% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~44 m; 62 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (10.3/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage26.9%
Canopy area1.61 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)44 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon62
Tree density10.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)84.0
Sample points used67

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
63.0 / 100

285 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 270 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 7.0 buildings per 100 m of 4,057 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m285
Buildings within 50 m285
Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building21.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)270
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density7.03 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge5%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter4,057 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, 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: 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)

  • playground

Nearby active-edge features (22)

  • parking lot23 m
  • parking lot32 m
  • parking lot44 m
  • transit stop: Opposite 230 The Donway West67 m
  • parking lot72 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • transit stop: The Donway W at Lawrence Ave E78 m
  • parking lot94 m
  • parking lot102 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • transit stop: Chipping Road144 m
  • transit stop: Chipping Road152 m
  • parking lot152 m
  • parking lot158 m
  • parking lot173 m
  • parking lot178 m
  • parking lot179 m
  • parking lot180 m
  • restaurant: Matsuda teppanyaki sushi181 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • parking lot191 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDuncairn Park
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
    79th
  • Edge activation
    50th
  • Connectivity
    99th
  • Amenity diversity
    82th
  • Natural comfort
    80th
  • Enclosure
    50th

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 score31 / 100
30.5 / 100

p18 citywide · p26 within Corridor / Linear Park

Volume (saturated)1
Density / ha1
Rating contribution100
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 5.0
out of 5
Ratings collected
4
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.92 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 Duncairn 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
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.
  • 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.