Neighbourhood Parkcluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)Milliken (130)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Scarborough Hydro Green Space

Neighbourhood Park, in the top tier overall (score 48, rank ~93th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: natural comfort.

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

Scarborough Hydro Green Space scores 47.7 / 100. Strongest dimensions: connectivity and enclosure / eyes on park. 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:daily urban life

Area · 7.01 ha

Vitality Score

48/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 56%

Data Confidence

47.7 / 100

Citywide

93rd

of all 3,273 parks

Among Neighbourhood Park

91st

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in large Neighbourhood Park (n=66)

Performance gap

+13

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 48 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 · p63

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk0 (risk)

+5.0

Natural Comfort25 · p7

-3.8

Connectivity68 · p87

+3.6

Edge Activation57 · p98

+1.8

Enclosure / Eyes on Park62 · p43

+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 edge activation score (57) is one of the city's strongest and its connectivity (68) is also top quartile (its perimeter is lined with active uses).

What limits this park

Scarborough Hydro Green Space is held back by natural comfort (25, bottom quartile)— only 0% canopy means little summer shade.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (57, top decile).

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

Connectivity (68) significantly outpaces natural comfort (25) — well placed in the city but offers little shade or ecological respite.

Performance in context

This park is a strong overperformer for its cohort — raw 48 versus an expected 35 for similar parks (large Neighbourhood Park) (gap +13).

Typology classification

confidence 70%

Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Neighbourhood Park: 7.0 ha, framed by 1 mid-rise vs 0 towers

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

57.1 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 8 active uses (transit_stop) 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%

67.8 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 5 mapped paths/walkways and 37 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 14 street intersections within 100 m; 17 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 5 estimated access points across ~1,229 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m6

Intersections within 100 m14

Paths/walkways (50 m)5

Sidewalk segments (50 m)37

Transit stops (400 m)17

Estimated entrances5

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.49

Park perimeter1,229 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%

24.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 0.0% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~587 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)587 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)0.0

Sample points used214

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

61.6 / 100

161 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (1 mid-rise, 160 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.0 m (~2 floors); 13.1 buildings per 100 m of 1,229 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 m161

Buildings within 50 m161

Avg edge height5.0 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building12.1 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)1

Low-rise (< 3 floors)160

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density13.10 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge1%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,229 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 (13)

transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Shady Hollow Dr26 m
transit stop — Middlefield Rd at McNicoll Ave29 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Middlefield Rd29 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at White Heather Blvd30 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at White Heather Blvd31 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Shady Hollow Dr41 m
transit stop — Middlefield Rd at McNicoll Ave73 m
transit stop — Middlefield Rd at Nashdene Rd98 m
transit stop — Middlefield Rd at Nashdene Rd104 m
retail — Sartaj Fashions135 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Tiffield Rd140 m
transit stop — McNicoll Ave at Boxdene Ave173 m
parking lot174 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
93th
Edge activation
98th
Connectivity
87th
Amenity diversity
63th
Natural comfort
7th
Enclosure
43th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park46
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park48
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceCorridor / Linear Park49
Scarborough Hydro Green SpaceNeighbourhood Park45
Queens Quay Traffic IslandWaterfront Park46

Most opposite parks

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

Trca Lands ( 26)Ravine / Naturalized Park27
Toronto Islands - Muggs Island ParkRavine / Naturalized Park25
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park28
Rouge ParkRavine / Naturalized Park26
Rouge ParkWaterfront Park25

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.

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.

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.