Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Davenport Village Park, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Dovercourt-Wallace Emerson-Junction (93)confidence moderate

Davenport Village Park

Parkette, above average overall (score 41, rank ~80th percentile). Strongest: enclosure; weakest: edge activation.

Photo by Brian Shew via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Davenport Village Park scores 41.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: edge activation (0). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.82 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 66%

Data Confidence
41.2 / 100
Citywide
80th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
84th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
+5
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.
Davenport Village 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 · p42
-12.5
Amenity Diversity12 · p79
-7.6
Enclosure / Eyes on Park86 · p92
+3.6
Border Vacuum Risk18 (risk)
+3.2
Connectivity65 · p83
+3.1
Natural Comfort59 · p74
+1.4

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

Davenport Village Park works because its enclosure score (86) is in the top tier and its connectivity (65) is also top quartile (28 mid-rise buildings frame the edge with passive surveillance).

What limits this park

Davenport Village Park 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 enclosure (86, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Davenport Village 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 (86) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0): frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its parkette typology (+5 vs the median in small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (8216 m²) with strong building frontage (5.9 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (cafe) and 6 dead/hostile uses (rail, 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%
65.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 37 mapped paths/walkways and 5 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 24 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~608 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)37
Sidewalk segments (50 m)5
Transit stops (400 m)24
Estimated entrances5
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.49
Park perimeter608 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% weightinferred 30%
59.2 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~39.2% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 56 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (56.0/ha). Reading: partially shaded. Source coverage: street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)1,500 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon56
Tree density56.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used57

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
86.2 / 100

36 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (28 mid-rise, 8 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 10.1 m (~3 floors); 5.9 buildings per 100 m of 608 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 28 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m36
Buildings within 50 m36
Avg edge height10.1 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building18.3 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)28
Low-rise (< 3 floors)8
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.92 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge78%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter608 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
18.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: Newmarket Subdivision. 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 (24)

  • rail: Newmarket Subdivision25 m
  • cafe: Balzac’s42 m
  • parking lot77 m
  • rail: Newmarket Subdivision84 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision86 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision90 m
  • rail: Newmarket Subdivision98 m
  • transit stop: Brandon Avenue113 m
  • transit stop: Caledonia Park Road128 m
  • transit stop: Brandon Ave129 m
  • retail: HIQ Cannabis144 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Rd at Caledonia Park Rd146 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • rail: Newmarket Subdivision150 m
  • rail: Newmarket Subdivision154 m
  • transit stop: Foundry Avenue163 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Road167 m
  • retail: Powertrade Electric Ltd.169 m
  • retail: Salon Araujo182 m
  • transit stop: Davenport Rd182 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision196 m
  • rail: North Toronto Subdivision199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDavenport Village 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
    80th
  • Edge activation
    42th
  • Connectivity
    83th
  • Amenity diversity
    79th
  • Natural comfort
    74th
  • Enclosure
    92th

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 score48 / 100
47.9 / 100

p61 citywide · p60 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)14
Density / ha51
Rating contribution90
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.6
out of 5
Ratings collected
84
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.96 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 Davenport Village 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.

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.