Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Participate
Scarborough Hydro Green Space — site photograph
Back to map
Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)Wexford/Maryvale (119)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Neighbourhood Park, middle of the pack overall (score 31, rank ~35th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

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 elevated (36). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors — not a definitive judgment.

Best for:daily urban life

Area · 1.45 ha

Vitality Score
31/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
30.9 / 100
Citywide
35th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Neighbourhood Park
21st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
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 · p65
-10.0
Edge Activation12 · p71
-9.4
Border Vacuum Risk36 (risk)
+1.4
Connectivity44 · p42
-1.2
Enclosure / Eyes on Park61 · p40
+1.1
Natural Comfort44 · p46
-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

Scarborough Hydro Green Space works because its edge activation score (12) is above average and its amenity diversity (0) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional) — risk score 36.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (12, above-average).

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 (61) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 12) — frame without animation.

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: 1.4 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
12.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 13 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 7 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%
43.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 6 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 9 street intersections within 100 m; 9 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~726 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m4
Intersections within 100 m9
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)6
Transit stops (400 m)9
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.55
Park perimeter726 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%
43.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 6.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~725 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage6.1%
Canopy area0.09 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)725 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)33.0
Sample points used99

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
61.0 / 100

81 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 80 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.7 m (~2 floors); 11.2 buildings per 100 m of 726 m perimeter — strong frontage density; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 1 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m81
Buildings within 50 m81
Avg edge height4.7 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building11.0 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1
Low-rise (< 3 floors)80
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density11.15 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge1%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter726 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 (47)

  • parking lot0 m
  • restaurant — Alexandria Cafe15 m
  • parking lot17 m
  • restaurant — Pizza Pizza21 m
  • parking lot22 m
  • retail25 m
  • cafe — Puffs & Rings26 m
  • retail — Al-Mumtaz Supermarket26 m
  • cafe — Nile Palace Cafe32 m
  • retail — Hardwood Giant43 m
  • parking lot51 m
  • transit stop — Elinor Avenue52 m
  • retail — Active Green + Ross66 m
  • parking lot68 m
  • restaurant — Karahi Boys69 m
  • retail77 m
  • restaurant — Pili Pili80 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • restaurant — Rose's Kitchen93 m
  • parking lot104 m
  • restaurant — Johnny Custard107 m
  • retail109 m
  • retail112 m
  • restaurant — Aleppo Kebab112 m
  • transit stop — Elinor Avenue113 m
  • restaurant — Top Gun113 m
  • parking lot115 m
  • restaurant — Sumaq117 m
  • retail122 m
  • retail — D'Ornellas125 m
  • retail — Arz126 m
  • restaurant — Mini Moe's Burgers127 m
  • parking lot133 m
  • retail — Foster's135 m
  • restaurant — Ibrahim B.B.Q. Shawarma145 m
  • restaurant — Chainsmoker148 m
  • parking lot149 m
  • retail152 m
  • parking lot164 m
  • retail165 m
  • restaurant — Yala Habibiz167 m
  • restaurant — Patna Kabab House180 m
  • retail184 m
  • retail185 m
  • restaurant — Habibi Q190 m
  • retail193 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureScarborough Hydro Green Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    35th
  • Edge activation
    71th
  • Connectivity
    42th
  • Amenity diversity
    65th
  • Natural comfort
    46th
  • Enclosure
    40th

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 — 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.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.