Corridor / Linear Parkcluster ·Underperforming / Leftover Spaces (enclosure-leaning)West Humber-Clairville (1)confidence moderatereal Toronto data

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space

Corridor / Linear Park, below average overall (score 28, rank ~20th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: edge activation.

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

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space scores 27.6 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park 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:walking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 2.71 ha

Vitality Score

28/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence

27.6 / 100

Citywide

21st

of all 3,273 parks

Among Corridor / Linear Park

27th

same primary typology

Expected for similar parks

median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=76)

Performance gap

-9

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 28 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 Activation0 · p18

-12.5

Amenity Diversity0 · p27

-10.0

Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)

+2.6

Natural Comfort36 · p26

-2.1

Connectivity45 · p44

-1.0

Enclosure / Eyes on Park56 · p22

+0.6

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 doesn't have a clear standout dimension — the strongest measured signal is connectivity, and even that is below the city median.

What limits this park

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space is held back by edge activation (0, bottom quartile)— the surrounding streets carry too few active uses to spill into the park.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally low edge activation (0, bottom quartile).

Jacobs reading

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space is currently underperforming on both axes — neither integrated into the city nor offering deep natural respite. A candidate for design intervention.

Performance in context

Reads as a modest underperformer relative to comparable parks (gap -9; cohort: medium Corridor / Linear Park).

Typology classification

confidence 75%

Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.1× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (2.7 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%

0.0 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 1 active uses (retail) and 3 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%

45.0 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 10 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 12 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,236 m of perimeter. low edge density — significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m3

Intersections within 100 m8

Paths/walkways (50 m)0

Sidewalk segments (50 m)10

Transit stops (400 m)12

Estimated entrances0

Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.24

Park perimeter1,236 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%

35.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 1.1% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~367 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage1.1%

Canopy area0.03 ha

Inside ravine system0.0%

Water surface inside park0.0%

Nearest water (if outside park)367 m

Estimated green100.0%

City-mapped trees inside polygon0

Tree density0.0 / ha

Cover diversity (Shannon, 0–100)8.4

Sample points used95

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%

56.1 / 100

73 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 73 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 4.8 m (~2 floors); 5.9 buildings per 100 m of 1,236 m perimeter — strong 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 m73

Buildings within 50 m73

Avg edge height4.8 m (~2 floors)

Tallest edge building7.9 m

Mid-rise (3–7 floors)0

Low-rise (< 3 floors)73

Towers (≥ 13 floors)0

Frontage density5.90 per 100 m perimeter

Mid-rise share of edge0%

Tower share of edge0%

Blank-edge share (proxy)0%

Park perimeter1,236 m

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

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%

24.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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 (14)

parking lot11 m
parking lot35 m
retail — Auto Vapour Cleaning57 m
parking lot87 m
transit stop — Steeles Avenue and Martin Grove Road Loop106 m
transit stop120 m
transit stop122 m
transit stop — 6793-6823 Steeles Avenue West126 m
parking lot127 m
rail — Halton Subdivision141 m
rail — Halton Subdivision142 m
parking lot143 m
transit stop — 6793-6823 Steeles Avenue West148 m
parking lot195 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Citywide percentile ranks

Across all Toronto parks in the dataset.

Overall vitality
20th
Edge activation
18th
Connectivity
44th
Amenity diversity
27th
Natural comfort
26th
Enclosure
22th

Most similar parks

Closest in metric space across the five structural dimensions.

Bathurst Lawn Memorial ParkCivic Square30
City Wide Open SpaceCorridor / Linear Park25
Tam Heather Country Club GroundsNeighbourhood Park28
Scarlett Bridge ParketteWaterfront Park31
Jonesville Allotment GardensOther28

Most opposite parks

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

Kew GardensNeighbourhood Park71
Leslie Grove ParkParkette68
Market Lane ParkUrban Plaza63
Bellevue Square ParkCivic Square66
Sir Winston Churchill ParkRavine / Naturalized Park69

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.

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.

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.