Othercluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksWest Humber-Clairville (1)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space

Other, middle of the pack overall (score 38, rank ~66th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space scores 37.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: edge activation 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:varies — see metrics

Area · 0.09 ha

Vitality Score

38/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 54%

Data Confidence

37.6 / 100

Citywide

66th

of all 3,273 parks

Among Other

91st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in pocket Other (n=27)

Performance gap

+16

raw − expected · context confidence medium

strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 38 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 · p22

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort22 · p0

-4.2

Connectivity41 · p36

-1.9

Enclosure / Eyes on Park36 · p7

-1.4

Edge Activation50 · p96

+0.0

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

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space works because its edge activation score (50) is one of the city's strongest (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space is held back by natural comfort (22, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (22, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

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

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 38 versus an expected 22 for similar parks (pocket Other) (gap +16).
Although its citywide rank is low (66th), it ranks highly among similar others (91st) — 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 (0.1 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 1.4/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

50.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 6 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) and 0 dead/hostile uses (none). 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%

40.7 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 5 street intersections within 100 m; 18 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~146 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m0

Intersections within 100 m5

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)18

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.00

Park perimeter146 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 24%

22.3 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1413 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)1,413 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used12

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightpartial 60%

36.0 / 100

2 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 2 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.1 m (~1 floors); 1.4 buildings per 100 m of 146 m perimeter — thin frontage — significant blank-edge share; edges are barely there or single-storey; no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 0 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m2

Buildings within 50 m2

Avg edge height4.1 m (~1 floors)

Tallest edge building4.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)2

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density1.37 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)54%

Park perimeter146 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 (15)

transit stop — Dixon Rd1 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Dixon Rd North Side34 m
transit stop — Dixon Rd at Martin Grove Rd41 m
transit stop — Dixon Road56 m
transit stop — Dixon Rd at Martin Grove Rd57 m
restaurant — Perkins99 m
highway — Highway 401124 m
highway — Highway 401146 m
highway — Highway 401149 m
highway — Highway 401157 m
transit stop — Park'N Fly Shuttle159 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Ronson Dr167 m
highway — Highway 401177 m
transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Ronson Dr192 m
highway — Highway 401194 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
66th
Edge activation
96th
Connectivity
36th
Amenity diversity
22th
Natural comfort
0th
Enclosure
7th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceOther41
City Wide Open SpaceOther35
City Wide Open SpaceWaterfront Park40
Etobicoke Hydro Green SpaceOther38
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park42

Most opposite parks

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

High ParkRavine / Naturalized Park47
Ramsden ParkRavine / Naturalized Park43
Cedarvale RavineRavine / Naturalized Park40
Lawren Harris ParkRavine / Naturalized Park44
Earlscourt ParkNeighbourhood Park44

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 Etobicoke 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.

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.
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.