Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
L'Amoreaux Hydro, site photograph
Back to map
Athletic / Recreation Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (large-scale)Steeles (116)confidence moderate

L'Amoreaux Hydro

Athletic / Recreation Park, above average overall (score 42, rank ~79th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

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

L'Amoreaux Hydro scores 42.1 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. Weakest: edge activation (10.7). Border-vacuum risk is elevated (60). This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fororganised sportactive recreation

Area · 13.73 ha

What's here

Recreation
Sports fieldBasketballOff-leash dog area
Facilities
Picnic area
Vitality Score
42/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 72%

Data Confidence
42.1 / 100
Citywide
79th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Athletic / Recreation Park
72nd
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
32
median in large Athletic / Recreation Park (n=27)
Performance gap
+10
raw − expected · context confidence medium
modest overperformer

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

Loading map…

The parks map is loading.
Street context. Park polygon highlighted on the citywide map.

Explain this score

Where did the 42 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 Activation11 · p70
-9.8
Connectivity79 · p98
+5.8
Amenity Diversity35 · p88
-3.1
Enclosure / Eyes on Park63 · p53
+1.3
Natural Comfort43 · p41
-1.1
Border Vacuum Risk60 (risk)
-1.0

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

L'Amoreaux Hydro works because its connectivity score (79) is one of the city's strongest and its amenity diversity (35) is also top quartile (23 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 25 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

L'Amoreaux Hydro's edges are fronted by border-vacuum land uses (highways, rail, parking, blank institutional), risk score 60.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high connectivity (79, top decile).

Jacobs reading

L'Amoreaux Hydro sits between an urban social park and an ecological retreat: moderately useful for both, exceptionally suited to neither.

Tradeoffs

  • Connectivity (79) significantly outpaces natural comfort (43): well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.
  • The park is enclosed by buildings (63) but the surrounding streets are quiet (edge activation 11): frame without animation.
  • High connectivity coexists with high border-vacuum risk (60): much of that connectivity is to highways, rail, or parking lots, not to neighbourhoods.

Performance in context

  • A modest overperformer for its athletic / recreation park typology (+10 vs the median in large Athletic / Recreation Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Athletic / Recreation Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Athletic / Recreation Park: 50% of amenity types are athletic (basketball, sports_field). Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (13.7 ha, framed by 8 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
10.7 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 12 active uses (transit_stop) 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%
79.1 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 31 mapped paths/walkways and 81 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 25 street intersections within 100 m; 23 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 19 estimated access points across ~2,320 m of perimeter. moderate edge density, small superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m16
Intersections within 100 m25
Paths/walkways (50 m)31
Sidewalk segments (50 m)81
Transit stops (400 m)23
Estimated entrances19
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.69
Park perimeter2,320 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
34.5 / 100

4 distinct amenity types in the park (basketball, dog_area, picnic, sports_field). Diversity, not raw count, drives the score so a park with many distinct activity types can outrank a larger park that repeats the same use.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
42.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 1.7% estimated tree canopy; 10.6% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~44 m; 4 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (0.3/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: treed_area, ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.7%
Canopy area0.23 ha
Inside ravine system10.6%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)44 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon4
Tree density0.3 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)38.2
Sample points used180

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
62.9 / 100

123 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (8 mid-rise, 115 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 6.5 m (~2 floors); 5.3 buildings per 100 m of 2,320 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are low-rise (mostly 2 to 3 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 8 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m123
Buildings within 50 m123
Avg edge height6.5 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building39.8 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)8
Low-rise (< 3 floors)115
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density5.30 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge7%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter2,320 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
60.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot, parking_lot. Jacobs warned that highways, rail, parking lots and blank institutional edges act as "vacuums" that 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 (4 types · 5 records)

  • basketball
  • dog area
  • picnic
  • sports field

Nearby active-edge features (34)

  • parking lot0 m
  • parking lot0 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at McNicoll Avenue4 m
  • parking lot5 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Morbank Dr7 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Silver Springs Blvd7 m
  • parking lot10 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Silver Springs Blvd21 m
  • transit stop: Perthshire Street21 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Morbank Dr22 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Staley Terrace32 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Avenue at Birchmount Road44 m
  • parking lot47 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at McNicoll Avenue48 m
  • transit stop: Birchmount Road at Staley Terrace57 m
  • parking lot63 m
  • transit stop: Perthshire Street71 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Avenue at Birchmount Road West Side73 m
  • parking lot90 m
  • parking lot112 m
  • parking lot113 m
  • transit stop: Kennedy Ave at McNicoll Ave120 m
  • retail: Kitchenware Outlet122 m
  • parking lot130 m
  • parking lot144 m
  • parking lot146 m
  • restaurant: Pit Stop Tropical Restaurant146 m
  • cafe: CoCo Fresh Tea & Juice148 m
  • transit stop: Kennedy Ave at McNicoll Ave152 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Kennedy Ave160 m
  • community: L’Amoreaux Community Recreation Centre164 m
  • parking lot165 m
  • transit stop: McNicoll Ave at Kennedy Ave186 m
  • parking lot187 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureL'Amoreaux Hydro
Edge activation, connectivity, amenity diversity, natural comfort, and enclosure, each 0 to 100.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

  • Overall vitality
    79th
  • Edge activation
    70th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    88th
  • Natural comfort
    41th
  • Enclosure
    53th

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 L'Amoreaux Hydromatters. 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
70%

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

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Parks (Green Space)
    Polygon boundaries, official names, types. Boundaries are reconciled against OpenStreetMap (ODbL) for new and updated parks.
  • 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.