Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksL'Amoreaux (117)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~35th 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 30.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. 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:daily urban life

Area · 3.42 ha

Vitality Score

31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

30.9 / 100

Citywide

35th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

21st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)

Performance gap

-7

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 31 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 · p15

-10.0

Edge Activation14 · p71

-9.1

Natural Comfort23 · p1

-4.1

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p33

+1.0

Connectivity52 · p59

+0.5

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 (14) is above average.

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space is held back by natural comfort (23, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, bottom quartile).

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 (52) significantly outpaces natural comfort (23) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -7; cohort: medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 3.4 ha, framed by 3 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

13.8 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 7 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) and 5 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%

52.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 18 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 25 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,008 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)18

Transit stops (400 m)25

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.40

Park perimeter1,008 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% weightinferred 30%

22.6 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1314 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: waterbodies. 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)1,314 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used158

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

59.6 / 100

62 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (3 mid-rise, 59 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.8 m (~2 floors); 6.2 buildings per 100 m of 1,008 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 3 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m62

Buildings within 50 m62

Avg edge height4.8 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building9.2 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)3

Low-rise (< 3 floors)59

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density6.15 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge5%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,008 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (20)

parking lot0 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Pharmacy Ave14 m
parking lot17 m
transit stop — Pharmacy Ave at McNicoll Ave21 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Pharmacy Ave51 m
transit stop — Pharmacy Ave at McNicoll Ave53 m
parking lot70 m
parking lot72 m
restaurant — Xin Jiang Barbeque Restaurant75 m
transit stop75 m
transit stop91 m
parking lot95 m
parking lot — Young Nak Korean Presbyterian Church Second Parking Lot110 m
transit stop — Chester Le Boulevard129 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Navaho Drive145 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Navaho Drive150 m
transit stop — Beverley Glen Boulevard158 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Navaho Drive173 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at McNicoll Avenue173 m
transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue East Side178 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
35th
Edge activation
71th
Connectivity
59th
Amenity diversity
15th
Natural comfort
1th
Enclosure
33th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceParkette32
Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceParkette35
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park35
City Wide Open SpaceParkette33
North York Rose GardenTower-Community Green Space29

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized 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.

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

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.