Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
DON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds — site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Banbury-Don Mills (42)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

DON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Parkette, middle of the pack overall (score 30, rank ~32th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Aerial — City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px source · cached 5/9/2026

DON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds scores 30.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.47 ha

Vitality Score
30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
30.2 / 100
Citywide
32nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Parkette
35th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in small Parkette (n=218)
Performance gap
-6
raw − expected · context confidence high
modest underperformer

Scores are not bell-curved. Percentiles and expected scores provide context without changing the underlying model.

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 Activation4 · p65
-11.4
Amenity Diversity0 · p44
-10.0
Natural Comfort35 · p22
-2.2
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Connectivity56 · p67
+1.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p45
+1.2

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

DON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds works because its connectivity score (56) is middle of the pack and its edge activation (4) is also above-average (18 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

DON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds is held back by natural comfort (35, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (35, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

DON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds 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 (62) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 4) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -6; cohort: small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (4717 m²) with strong building frontage (9.0 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
4.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (retail, restaurant, transit_stop) and 8 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%
56.2 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~333 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6
Intersections within 100 m5
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)19
Transit stops (400 m)18
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.80
Park perimeter333 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% weightpartial 45%
35.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~160 m; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. 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)160 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon1
Tree density1.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used33

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
62.0 / 100

30 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 29 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.9 m (~2 floors); 9.0 buildings per 100 m of 333 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m30
Buildings within 50 m30
Avg edge height4.9 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building9.2 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)29
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density9.01 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge3%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter333 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" — they 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 (54)

  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop — The Donway West30 m
  • parking lot41 m
  • retail — Spiritleaf43 m
  • retail — Magicuts44 m
  • retail — Hand & Stone Massage and Facial Spa44 m
  • retail — Connect Hearing45 m
  • retail — Top Queen Nails45 m
  • parking lot48 m
  • restaurant — Congee Queen57 m
  • transit stop — The Donway W at Lawrence Ave E65 m
  • retail — LCBO70 m
  • parking lot73 m
  • parking lot74 m
  • retail — Donway White Cleaners76 m
  • parking lot76 m
  • retail — Pet Valu82 m
  • retail — ORTHOTECH.ca83 m
  • parking lot88 m
  • parking lot89 m
  • restaurant — Subway89 m
  • transit stop — Tremont Crescent (East)106 m
  • retail108 m
  • retail — Bakery Sweetway108 m
  • retail — The UPS Store108 m
  • retail — Lodhia Jewellers108 m
  • retail — The Hair Gallery108 m
  • retail — Don Mills Optical108 m
  • retail — Enchanting Flowers109 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • transit stop — Lawrence Avenue East118 m
  • retail — McEwan127 m
  • parking lot132 m
  • retail138 m
  • parking lot — CF Shops at Don Mills Parkade139 m
  • parking lot141 m
  • retail — Dove Cleaners143 m
  • retail155 m
  • parking lot156 m
  • retail160 m
  • restaurant — Eataly163 m
  • transit stop — Tremont Crescent (East)165 m
  • retail — Eddie Bauer165 m
  • retail — GNC168 m
  • retail — Hygge Hideaway171 m
  • retail176 m
  • retail — Guess178 m
  • retail — New Balance184 m
  • retail — The 11184 m
  • retail — Lorna Jane190 m
  • retail — Spanner191 m
  • retail — Coach197 m
  • parking lot198 m
  • transit stop — Opposite 230 The Donway West200 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureDON MILLS LIBRARY - Building Grounds

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    32th
  • Edge activation
    65th
  • Connectivity
    67th
  • Amenity diversity
    44th
  • Natural comfort
    22th
  • Enclosure
    45th

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.

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 DON MILLS LIBRARY - 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

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.
  • 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

  • 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.