Skip to content
Toronto Park Atlas
Participate
Etobicoke Hydro Green Space — site photograph
Back to map
Othercluster ·Active-edged · exposed parksWest Humber-Clairville (1)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space

Other, above average overall (score 41, rank ~78th 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 40.8 / 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 · 0.91 ha

Vitality Score
41/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence
40.8 / 100
Citywide
78th
of all 3,273 parks
Among Other
96th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
24
median in small Other (n=41)
Performance gap
+17
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong overperformer

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

Explain this score

Where did the 41 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 Comfort23 · p1
-4.1
Edge Activation57 · p98
+1.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park40 · p9
-1.0
Connectivity46 · 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

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space works because its edge activation score (57) 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 (23, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low natural comfort (23, 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 41 versus an expected 24 for similar parks (small Other) (gap +17).

Typology classification

confidence 30%
Other

Classified as Other: does not meet any specific typology threshold (0.9 ha, 0 amenity types, frontage 1.7/100m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
57.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 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%
45.5 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 7 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 4 street intersections within 100 m; 22 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~421 m of perimeter. moderate edge density — small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3
Intersections within 100 m4
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)7
Transit stops (400 m)22
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.71
Park perimeter421 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 30%
22.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~1270 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)1,270 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0
Sample points used63

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
39.9 / 100

7 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 7 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.6 m (~2 floors); 1.7 buildings per 100 m of 421 m perimeter — moderate frontage density; 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 m7
Buildings within 50 m7
Avg edge height4.6 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building6.0 m
Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)7
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density1.66 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)45%
Park perimeter421 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 (20)

  • transit stop — Dixon Rd at Martin Grove Rd3 m
  • transit stop — Dixon Road62 m
  • transit stop — Dixon Rd67 m
  • transit stop80 m
  • transit stop — Martin Grove Rd at Dixon Rd North Side83 m
  • transit stop — Dixon Rd at Martin Grove Rd90 m
  • transit stop94 m
  • restaurant — Perkins99 m
  • highway — Highway 401114 m
  • highway — Highway 401122 m
  • transit stop — Park'N Fly Shuttle137 m
  • transit stop — Park'N Fly Shuttle137 m
  • highway — Highway 401139 m
  • highway — Highway 401146 m
  • highway — Highway 401160 m
  • highway — Highway 401172 m
  • transit stop — Park'N Fly Shuttle172 m
  • restaurant — Makimono Restaurant183 m
  • parking lot190 m
  • parking lot190 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureEtobicoke Hydro Green Space

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    78th
  • Edge activation
    98th
  • Connectivity
    46th
  • Amenity diversity
    22th
  • Natural comfort
    1th
  • Enclosure
    9th

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 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.

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.

  • 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.