Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Dane Parkette, site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Yorkdale-Glen Park (31)confidence moderate

Dane Parkette

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Flaviu Purcarin via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Dane Parkette scores 48 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (11.9). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fordaily urban life

Area · 1.04 ha

Vitality Score
48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
48.0 / 100
Citywide
93rd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
91st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
Performance gap
+11
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.
Dane Parkette, 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 48 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 Diversity12 · p79
-7.6
Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)
+5.0
Enclosure / Eyes on Park85 · p91
+3.5
Edge Activation39 · p91
-2.9
Natural Comfort36 · p26
-2.1
Connectivity60 · p74
+2.0

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

Dane Parkette works because its edge activation score (39) is in the top tier and its enclosure (85) is also top decile.

What limits this park

Dane Parkette is held back by natural comfort (36, below-average): only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (39, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Dane Parkette sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • 32 nearby towers cast wind and shadow without contributing canopy: passive surveillance is plentiful but human-scale comfort is not.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its neighbourhood park typology (+11 vs the median in medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.0 ha, framed by 63 mid-rise vs 32 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
38.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail) and 3 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%
60.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 7 mapped paths/walkways and 8 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 16 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~531 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)7
Sidewalk segments (50 m)8
Transit stops (400 m)16
Estimated entrances4
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.32
Park perimeter531 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% weightpartial 45%
35.8 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~4.0% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); nearest waterbody ~1474 m; 6 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.8/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies, 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)1,474 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon6
Tree density5.8 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)0.0
Sample points used72

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
85.4 / 100

139 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (63 mid-rise, 44 low-rise, 32 tower); avg edge height 24.1 m (~8 floors); 26.2 buildings per 100 m of 531 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges lean tall but still framed; 32 towers ≥ 40 m within 25 m of the edge. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 63 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m139
Buildings within 50 m139
Avg edge height24.1 m (~8 floors)
Tallest edge building68.9 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)63
Low-rise (< 3 floors)44
Towers (≥ 13 floors)32
Frontage density26.18 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge45%
Tower share of edge23%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter531 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
0.0 risk

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

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 (36)

  • parking lot62 m
  • retail: 180 Smoke Vape Store77 m
  • retail: Cash Money79 m
  • restaurant: Subway79 m
  • retail: Toronto Cabinetry79 m
  • retail: Variety Plus80 m
  • parking lot85 m
  • restaurant: Willy's Jerk87 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • retail: Elegant Spa89 m
  • retail: Tantasia92 m
  • transit stop: Dane Avenue92 m
  • retail: Century Nails94 m
  • transit stop: Via Bagnato111 m
  • transit stop: Apex Road117 m
  • retail: INS Market119 m
  • transit stop: Lawrence Avenue West120 m
  • retail: Studio L128 m
  • transit stop: Dufferin Street131 m
  • transit stop: Corona Street133 m
  • parking lot147 m
  • restaurant: Mirra's Place148 m
  • transit stop: Lawrence Avenue West149 m
  • retail: F&S Collectibles154 m
  • parking lot159 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • retail: Barber Shop168 m
  • parking lot171 m
  • retail: Sassi Nails172 m
  • retail: Crowned174 m
  • parking lot179 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • parking lot187 m
  • transit stop: Dufferin Street192 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDane Parkette
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
    93th
  • Edge activation
    91th
  • Connectivity
    74th
  • Amenity diversity
    79th
  • Natural comfort
    26th
  • Enclosure
    91th

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 score35 / 100
35.1 / 100

p30 citywide · p33 within Neighbourhood Park

Volume (saturated)7
Density / ha27
Rating contribution80
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.2
out of 5
Ratings collected
39
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 Dane Parkettematters. 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.
  • Increase canopy and reduce paved area. Shade and water features extend usable hours and seasons.

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.