Othercluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksBlack Creek (24)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

North York Hydro Green Space

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~56th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: enclosure.

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

North York Hydro Green Space scores 35.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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:varies — see metrics

Area · 1.99 ha

Vitality Score

36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

35.5 / 100

Citywide

57th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

84th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Other (n=60)

Performance gap

raw − expected · context confidence high

modest overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 36 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 · p29

-10.0

Edge Activation14 · p71

-9.1

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Connectivity63 · p78

+2.5

Natural Comfort36 · p27

-2.1

Enclosure / Eyes on Park41 · p9

-0.9

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 (63) is above average and its edge activation (14) is also above-average (21 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

North York Hydro Green Space is held back by enclosure (41, bottom quartile).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low enclosure (41, bottom 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 (63) significantly outpaces natural comfort (36) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

A modest overperformer for its other typology (+7 vs the median in medium Other).
Although its citywide rank is low (57th), it ranks highly among similar others (84th) — strong for what it is, even if the absolute score is moderate.

Typology classification

confidence 30%

Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (2.0 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 1.2/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

13.8 / 100

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

62.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 3 mapped paths/walkways and 20 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 4 estimated access points across ~655 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m5

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)3

Sidewalk segments (50 m)20

Transit stops (400 m)21

Estimated entrances4

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.76

Park perimeter655 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%

36.1 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 1.4% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~553 m; 1 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.5/ha). Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.4%

Canopy area0.03 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)553 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon1

Tree density0.5 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)10.9

Sample points used138

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

41.1 / 100

8 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.3 m (~2 floors); 1.2 buildings per 100 m of 655 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are low-rise (mostly 2–3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m8

Buildings within 50 m8

Avg edge height6.3 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building11.6 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)7

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density1.22 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge13%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)59%

Park perimeter655 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 (38)

transit stop — 4148 Jane St38 m
parking lot65 m
parking lot70 m
parking lot73 m
retail — Dollarama74 m
retail — Cellular Point77 m
parking lot83 m
transit stop — Jane St at San Romanoway84 m
retail — Fido89 m
retail — Koodo96 m
parking lot98 m
transit stop — Stong Court98 m
retail — Optical Valu105 m
community — The Spot106 m
retail — Expert Tailoring106 m
retail — Si Vous Play Sports124 m
parking lot126 m
transit stop — Jane St at York Gate Blvd128 m
parking lot129 m
restaurant — Caribbean Cuisine146 m
parking lot146 m
retail — Spectrum Electronics147 m
restaurant — China Wok147 m
retail — Gateway Newstands155 m
rail156 m
parking lot157 m
parking lot160 m
restaurant — El Greeko160 m
parking lot161 m
rail163 m
restaurant — Top Food167 m
retail — Ziwa Cell Phones & Computers172 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Wilmont Drive175 m
rail179 m
parking lot182 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Stong Court184 m
parking lot195 m
transit stop — Driftwood Ave at Stong Court199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
56th
Edge activation
71th
Connectivity
78th
Amenity diversity
29th
Natural comfort
27th
Enclosure
9th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Downsview ParkOther37
City Wide Open SpaceTower-Community Green Space32
Don River WatercourseWaterfront Park32
Humber Bay Shores ParkWaterfront Park38
Glendale Memorial GardensWaterfront Park23

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Joseph Burr Tyrrell ParkUrban Plaza50
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Bernard Avenue Road AllowanceUrban Plaza54

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 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.

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.
Encourage mid-rise, windowed frontages around the park so residents have direct sightlines onto it.

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.