Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Agincourt North (129)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Corridor / Linear Park, in the top tier overall (score 49, rank ~95th 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 49.2 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity 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:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 11.78 ha

Vitality Score

49/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence

49.2 / 100

Citywide

95th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

94th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Corridor / Linear Park (n=19)

Performance gap

+14

raw − expected · context confidence medium

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 · p62

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Connectivity67 · p86

+3.4

Edge Activation63 · p98

+3.1

Natural Comfort30 · p14

-3.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park58 · p25

+0.8

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 (63) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (67) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space is held back by natural comfort (30, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (63, 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.

Tradeoffs

Connectivity (67) significantly outpaces natural comfort (30) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 49 versus an expected 35 for similar parks (large Corridor / Linear Park) (gap +14).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.2× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (11.8 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

62.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 10 active uses (transit_stop) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%

66.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 14 mapped paths/walkways and 45 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 13 street intersections within 100 m; 25 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 10 estimated access points across ~2,702 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6

Intersections within 100 m13

Paths/walkways (50 m)14

Sidewalk segments (50 m)45

Transit stops (400 m)25

Estimated entrances10

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.22

Park perimeter2,702 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%

29.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; 6.2% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~369 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%

Canopy area0.00 ha

Inside ravine system6.2%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)369 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)33.4

Sample points used146

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

57.6 / 100

171 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 170 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.1 m (~2 floors); 6.3 buildings per 100 m of 2,702 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 m171

Buildings within 50 m171

Avg edge height5.1 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building9.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)170

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density6.33 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge1%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter2,702 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 (16)

transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at McCowan Road18 m
transit stop — Brimley Rd at McNicoll Ave21 m
transit stop — McCowan Road at McNicoll Avenue31 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Hutchcroft Avenue38 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Brimley Road50 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Hutchcroft Avenue52 m
transit stop — McCowan Road at McNicoll Avenue54 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Brimley Road55 m
transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at McCowan Road56 m
transit stop — Brimley Rd at McNicoll Ave69 m
parking lot118 m
transit stop — Brimley Rd at Danjohn Cres132 m
transit stop — Brimley Rd at Danjohn Cres134 m
transit stop — McCowan Road at Big Red Avenue172 m
transit stop — McCowan Road at Bridley Drive174 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Boxdene Ave189 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
95th
Edge activation
98th
Connectivity
86th
Amenity diversity
62th
Natural comfort
14th
Enclosure
25th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park48
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park48
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park46
Queens Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park46
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park45

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.