Parkettecluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Steeles (116)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Parkette, below average overall (score 26, rank ~15th 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 26 / 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:a quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.82 ha

Vitality Score

26/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 53%

Data Confidence

26.0 / 100

Citywide

15th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Parkette

11th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in small Parkette (n=218)

Performance gap

-10

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 26 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 Activation6 · p66

-10.9

Amenity Diversity0 · p15

-10.0

Connectivity29 · p18

-4.2

Natural Comfort23 · p1

-4.1

Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)

+3.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p55

+1.4

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 (6) is middle of the pack.

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 is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Tradeoffs

The park is enclosed by buildings (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 6) — frame without animation.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -10; cohort: small Parkette).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (8197 m²) with strong building frontage (4.3 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

6.3 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (transit_stop) 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% weightpartial 65%

29.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 0 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 3 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~464 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2

Intersections within 100 m3

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)0

Transit stops (400 m)22

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.43

Park perimeter464 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%

22.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1203 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)1,203 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used56

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

64.2 / 100

20 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (5 mid-rise, 15 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 4.3 buildings per 100 m of 464 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 5 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m20

Buildings within 50 m20

Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building9.8 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)5

Low-rise (< 3 floors)15

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density4.31 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge25%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter464 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (18)

parking lot30 m
transit stop87 m
transit stop104 m
parking lot — Young Nak Korean Presbyterian Church Second Parking Lot108 m
parking lot110 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at McNicoll Avenue122 m
parking lot122 m
transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue East Side144 m
transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue155 m
transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue163 m
transit stop — McNicoll Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue West Side175 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Navaho Drive179 m
parking lot181 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at McNicoll Avenue182 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at Navaho Drive184 m
transit stop — Victoria Park Avenue at McNicoll Avenue188 m
parking lot195 m
parking lot196 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
15th
Edge activation
66th
Connectivity
18th
Amenity diversity
15th
Natural comfort
1th
Enclosure
55th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park29
Jeanette ParkCorridor / Linear Park26
Glendora ParkParkette26
City Wide Open SpaceParkette23
Adanac ParkParkette26

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Sir Winston Churchill ParkRavine / Naturalized Park69
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
David Crombie ParkCorridor / Linear Park66

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.
Add or open more entrances and improve sidewalk continuity around the park. More permeability means more spontaneous use.
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.