Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
North York Hydro Green Space — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)York University Heights (27)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

North York Hydro Green Space

Neighbourhood Park, below average overall (score 28, rank ~22th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

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

North York Hydro Green Space scores 27.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (72). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 1.60 ha

Vitality Score
28/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 59%

Data Confidence
27.9 / 100
Citywide
22nd
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
9th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in medium Neighbourhood Park (n=363)
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 28 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 Activation0 · p14
-12.5
Amenity Diversity0 · p22
-10.0
Connectivity69 · p89
+3.8
Natural Comfort33 · p16
-2.6
Border Vacuum Risk72 (risk)
-2.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park65 · p57
+1.5

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

North York Hydro Green Space works because its connectivity score (69) is in the top tier (27 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 10 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

North York Hydro Green Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (72).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (69, top quartile).

Jacobs reading

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

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (69) significantly outpaces natural comfort (33) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (65) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (72) — much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -10; cohort: medium Neighbourhood Park).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 1.6 ha, framed by 6 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 9 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 8 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). 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%
68.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 28 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 10 street intersections within 100 m; 27 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 2 estimated access points across ~519 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy — no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m10
Intersections within 100 m10
Paths/walkways (50 m)3
Sidewalk segments (50 m)28
Transit stops (400 m)27
Estimated entrances2
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter1.93
Park perimeter519 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%
32.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1044 m; 2 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (1.3/ha). Reading: exposed. 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)1,044 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon2
Tree density1.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used111

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
64.7 / 100

9 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (6 mid-rise, 3 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 13.7 m (~5 floors); 1.7 buildings per 100 m of 519 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3–7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 6 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m9
Buildings within 50 m9
Avg edge height13.7 m (~5 floors)
Tallest edge building34.8 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)6
Low-rise (< 3 floors)3
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.74 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge67%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)42%
Park perimeter519 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
72.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, rail, rail. 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 (35)

  • parking lot4 m
  • transit stop — Keele St at Four Winds Drive11 m
  • parking lot14 m
  • rail19 m
  • transit stop — Murray Ross Parkway at Columbia Gate27 m
  • parking lot39 m
  • rail45 m
  • transit stop49 m
  • transit stop49 m
  • transit stop — Four Winds Drive - Finch West Station51 m
  • retail62 m
  • transit stop — Four Winds Drive74 m
  • parking lot78 m
  • transit stop — Keele St at Ross Murray Pkwy85 m
  • transit stop — Finch West Station86 m
  • parking lot92 m
  • rail100 m
  • transit stop — Finch West Station106 m
  • parking lot110 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • transit stop — Finch West Station118 m
  • parking lot — Finch West Parking123 m
  • transit stop — Finch West131 m
  • transit stop — Finch West133 m
  • restaurant — District 45 Lounge141 m
  • transit stop — Finch West Station145 m
  • parking lot154 m
  • retail — Lubricants Shop180 m
  • parking lot184 m
  • retail185 m
  • retail — Access Motors186 m
  • transit stop — Keele Street186 m
  • retail — MUSE Massage Spa194 m
  • restaurant — J's Bar & Restaurant199 m
  • transit stop — Finch Avenue West North Side - Finch West Station199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureNorth York Hydro Green Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    22th
  • Edge activation
    14th
  • Connectivity
    89th
  • Amenity diversity
    22th
  • Natural comfort
    16th
  • Enclosure
    57th

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

Programming, social attention, temporal rhythm, and nearby pedestrian / cycling flow. An experimental aggregate layer that complements the spatial scores — partial coverage, partial confidence.

confidence 35%
Overall activity
15/ 100
15.1 / 100
Programming / events
0unknown
Social attention
8unknown
Temporal rhythm
13unknown
Pedestrian / cycling flow
50real
Cultural significance
15unknown

Activity reading: pedestrian intensity 47.8/100; cycling/trail 79.7/100. The strongest signal is observed pedestrian/cycling activity. Source coverage: counters.

Does this score feel accurate?

Your read of North York 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.

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.