Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Steeles (116)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Parkette, in the top tier overall (score 49, rank ~94th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Scarborough Hydro Green Space scores 48.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and edge activation. 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 for:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.57 ha

Vitality Score

49/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

48.8 / 100

Citywide

94th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

96th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Parkette (n=218)

Performance gap

+13

raw − expected · context confidence high

strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 49 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 · p63

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Edge Activation60 · p98

+2.6

Natural Comfort41 · p41

-1.3

Connectivity56 · p67

+1.3

Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p47

+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

Scarborough Hydro Green Space works because its edge activation score (60) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (56) is also above-average (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space 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 edge activation (60, top decile).

Jacobs reading

Scarborough Hydro Green Space sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat — moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 49 versus an expected 36 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (5706 m²) with strong building frontage (17.3 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

60.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (restaurant, transit_stop, retail, community, cafe) and 1 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%

56.3 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 16 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 8 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~353 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6

Intersections within 100 m10

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)16

Transit stops (400 m)8

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.70

Park perimeter353 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%

41.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 4.9% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~920 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage4.9%

Canopy area0.03 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)920 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)28.1

Sample points used41

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

62.3 / 100

61 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 61 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.3 m (~2 floors); 17.3 buildings per 100 m of 353 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m61

Buildings within 50 m61

Avg edge height5.3 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building6.7 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)61

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density17.30 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter353 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 (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (35)

restaurant — Metro Square Café Restaurant54 m
parking lot57 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Firebrace Road72 m
community — TCCSA73 m
restaurant — Happy Fishman82 m
retail — K-OS Collectibles83 m
restaurant — Cheng Man Xiang Noodle House84 m
retail — Seewell Optical87 m
restaurant — Tai Ping Hsiang B.B.Q.87 m
retail — The Dough Cafe & Pastry89 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Ferrier Street91 m
cafe — 1/2 Coffee91 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Firebrace Road91 m
retail94 m
retail — Lucky & More101 m
retail — Mandarin Holidays103 m
retail — Style Window Covering108 m
retail — Simon Hair Design111 m
cafe — CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice121 m
parking lot121 m
retail — Eye Hear You125 m
parking lot128 m
retail — Aghapy Convenience & Mediterranean Foods129 m
restaurant — Xin Jiang Restaurant140 m
restaurant — Hongming BBQ143 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue at Ferrier Street149 m
parking lot157 m
restaurant — Wagyu Sushi161 m
parking lot161 m
restaurant — Chinese Dumpling House168 m
parking lot170 m
restaurant — Whole Sheep Feast Restaurant171 m
restaurant — New Century Restaurant187 m
retail — Peace Health196 m
retail197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
94th
Edge activation
98th
Connectivity
67th
Amenity diversity
63th
Natural comfort
41th
Enclosure
47th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Taylor Creek ParkWaterfront Park50
North York Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park47
Hickorynut ParketteParkette47
Trca Lands ( 62)Waterfront Park47
Creekside ParkWaterfront Park48

Most opposite parks

Furthest in metric space — useful for recognising what kind of park this isn’t.

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

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 Scarborough Hydro Green Spacematters. 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.

What would improve this park?

Generated from the weakest measured dimensions — a starting point, not a prescription.

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

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.