Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Bendale (127)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Neighbourhood Park, below average overall (score 30, rank ~30th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Scarborough Hydro Green Space scores 29.8 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (0). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 8.10 ha

Vitality Score

30/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

29.8 / 100

Citywide

29th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

16th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)

Performance gap

-5

raw − expected · context confidence high

typical

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

Explain this score

Where did the 30 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 · p56

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p64

-10.0

Natural Comfort38 · p33

-1.8

Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)

+1.4

Enclosure / Eyes on Park64 · p54

+1.4

Connectivity56 · p67

+1.2

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 connectivity score (56) is middle of the pack and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average (21 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk).

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space is held back by natural comfort (38, below-average)— only 2% canopy means little summer shade; border-vacuum risk is also elevated (36).

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (38, below-average).

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

The park is enclosed by buildings (64) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 0) — frame without animation.

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 8.1 ha, framed by 7 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop, retail) and 9 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%

56.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 1 mapped paths/walkways and 19 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 21 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,467 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m7

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)1

Sidewalk segments (50 m)19

Transit stops (400 m)21

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.48

Park perimeter1,467 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%

38.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 2.3% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~397 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage2.3%

Canopy area0.19 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)397 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)15.8

Sample points used130

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

63.9 / 100

105 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (7 mid-rise, 98 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.7 m (~2 floors); 7.2 buildings per 100 m of 1,467 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 7 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m105

Buildings within 50 m105

Avg edge height5.7 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building38.9 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)7

Low-rise (< 3 floors)98

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density7.16 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge7%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,467 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

36.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, 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 (37)

parking lot0 m
parking lot0 m
transit stop — Marcos Boulevard5 m
parking lot17 m
transit stop — Midland Ave at Prudential Dr24 m
retail — Top Food Fresh Mart26 m
transit stop — Danielle Moore Circle52 m
retail — Carquest56 m
parking lot59 m
parking lot64 m
transit stop — Midland Ave at Prudential Dr67 m
parking lot72 m
parking lot81 m
parking lot87 m
retail90 m
parking lot96 m
transit stop — Brockley Drive99 m
retail124 m
restaurant — Popeyes154 m
transit stop — Brockley Drive154 m
retail — Coin Laundry157 m
retail159 m
restaurant — Kaka Restaurant166 m
retail — Gold Stone Jewelry167 m
parking lot168 m
restaurant — Kaka169 m
restaurant — Kaka169 m
parking lot170 m
retail — A&A Cash for Gold171 m
parking lot172 m
transit stop — Midland Ave at Romulus Dr174 m
transit stop — Lawrence Avenue East174 m
retail — Circle K177 m
parking lot184 m
cafe — Tim Hortons188 m
transit stop — Midland Avenue198 m
transit stop — Midland Ave at Marcos Blvd199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
30th
Edge activation
56th
Connectivity
67th
Amenity diversity
64th
Natural comfort
33th
Enclosure
54th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Gustav ParketteParkette33
CRESTWOOD COLLEGE - Building GroundsNeighbourhood Park32
Measurement ParkOther30
Scotia ParketteParkette25
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park31

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Ryerson Community ParkUrban Plaza60

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.
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.