Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds, site photograph
Back to map
Ravine / Naturalized Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (ravine-leaning)St.Andrew-Windfields (40)confidence moderate

DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds

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

Photo by David Duncan House via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds scores 42 / 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 forescape into natureshaded summer use

Area · 5.35 ha

Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
42.0 / 100
Citywide
82nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Ravine / Naturalized Park
85th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine (n=119)
Performance gap
+6
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.
DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds, 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 · p38
-10.0
Edge Activation28 · p86
-5.5
Natural Comfort82 · p93
+4.8
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Connectivity43 · p41
-1.3
Enclosure / Eyes on Park52 · p17
+0.2

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

DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds works because its natural comfort score (82) is in the top tier and its edge activation (28) is also top quartile (43% tree canopy provides real shade; it sits inside the ravine system).

What limits this park

DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds is held back by enclosure (52, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high natural comfort (82, top decile).

Jacobs reading

DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Natural comfort (82) significantly outpaces connectivity (43): restorative but hard to reach for daily use.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its ravine / naturalized park typology (+6 vs the median in large Ravine / Naturalized Park ravine).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Ravine / Naturalized Park

Classified as Ravine / Naturalized Park: 100% ravine overlap, 43% canopy

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
28.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) 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: OSM POIs (amenity/shop) + Toronto Building Footprints + land use

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
43.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 17 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 2 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~942 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m1
Intersections within 100 m2
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)17
Transit stops (400 m)22
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.11
Park perimeter942 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% weightmeasured 75%
82.0 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 42.6% estimated tree canopy; 100.0% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~277 m; 10 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.9/ha). Reading: ravine-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage42.6%
Canopy area2.28 ha
Inside ravine system100.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)277 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon10
Tree density1.9 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)88.0
Sample points used270

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
52.1 / 100

10 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (4 mid-rise, 5 low-rise, 1 tower); avg edge height 18.1 m (~6 floors); 1.1 buildings per 100 m of 942 m perimeter (thin frontage with significant blank-edge share); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); 1 tower ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 4 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m10
Buildings within 50 m10
Avg edge height18.1 m (~6 floors)
Tallest edge building59.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)4
Low-rise (< 3 floors)5
Towers (≥ 13 floors)1
Frontage density1.06 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge40%
Tower share of edge10%
Blank-edge share (proxy)65%
Park perimeter942 m

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

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: 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 (41)

  • transit stop: Moatfield Drive0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: York Mills Road13 m
  • restaurant: Gilaneh21 m
  • transit stop: Moatfield Drive41 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road52 m
  • transit stop: Don Mills Road55 m
  • parking lot57 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • transit stop: York Mills Road67 m
  • parking lot75 m
  • restaurant: Darband76 m
  • restaurant: Pizza Nova97 m
  • restaurant: Subway103 m
  • restaurant: Casa Manila104 m
  • parking lot106 m
  • parking lot107 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • transit stop: 900 York Mills Road128 m
  • parking lot131 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • restaurant: Popeyes139 m
  • parking lot139 m
  • restaurant: Captain's Boil148 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • restaurant: Robo Sushi161 m
  • restaurant: Cucina Di Paisano167 m
  • parking lot169 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • parking lot170 m
  • parking lot174 m
  • retail: The Colour Field174 m
  • retail: Saltwater Pros175 m
  • restaurant: Taftan Kebob178 m
  • transit stop182 m
  • restaurant: Firehouse Subs185 m
  • retail: Custom Care Cleaners192 m
  • transit stop195 m
  • parking lot196 m
  • restaurant: Fox & Fiddle198 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - Building Grounds
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
    86th
  • Connectivity
    41th
  • Amenity diversity
    38th
  • Natural comfort
    93th
  • Enclosure
    17th

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

“Elegant fine-dining mainstay known for its art deco decor, prime steaks & seafood entrees.” (Google editorial summary)

Visitor signal score44 / 100
44.1 / 100

p53 citywide · p60 within Ravine / Naturalized Park

Volume (saturated)79
Density / ha78
Rating contribution85
Match dampener×0.55
Average rating
★ 4.4
out of 5
Ratings collected
1,843
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors
  • match flagged for human review, confidence dampened

Source: Google Places API · match needs_review (0.67 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 DAVID DUNCAN HOUSE - 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.

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.

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.