Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Etobicoke Hydro Green Space, site photograph
Back to map
Corridor / Linear ParkType:Underperforming / Leftover Space (enclosure-leaning)Rockcliffe-Smythe

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space

Corridor / Linear Park, middle of the pack overall (score 36, rank ~54th percentile). Strongest: edge activation; weakest: enclosure.

No photograph yet. If you have one of Etobicoke Hydro Green Space, we would like to use it.

Submit a photo

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

Data updated

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space scores 35.5 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and natural comfort. 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 forwalking + cycling routeslinear social use

Area · 2.38 ha

Getting around

Paths

No walking paths mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Seating

No seating mapped in OpenStreetMap.

Arrival

Nearest parking 38 m away. None of the 6 nearby lots records whether it has accessible spaces.

Path, seating and parking data comes from OpenStreetMap and reflects what volunteers have mapped, not a survey. Absence here means nobody has recorded it. This section does not assess wheelchair access: the relevant OpenStreetMap tag is present on well under 1% of Toronto paths.

Vitality Score
36/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 63%

Data Confidence
35.5 / 100

Data confidence: moderate

Citywide
54th
of all 3,753 parks
Among Corridor / Linear Park
61st
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
36
median in medium Corridor / Linear Park (n=70)
Performance gap
-0
raw − expected · context confidence high
typical

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 36 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 · p46
-10.0
Edge Activation14 · p71
-9.1
Border Vacuum Risk12 (risk)
+3.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park60 · p39
+1.0
Connectivity49 · p57
-0.2
Natural Comfort51 · p65
+0.1

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 (14) is above average and its natural comfort (51) is also above-average.

What limits this park

Etobicoke Hydro Green Space doesn't have a clear weakness. Every measured dimension is at or above the middle of the pack.

Most distinctive characteristic

Most distinctive feature: exceptionally high edge activation (14, above-average).

Jacobs reading

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

Typology classification

confidence 75%
Corridor / Linear Parkalso reads as Neighbourhood Park

Classified as Corridor / Linear Park: shape elongation 2.7× a circle of equal area. Secondary read: Neighbourhood Park (2.4 ha, framed by 0 mid-rise vs 0 towers).

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
13.5 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 5 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant) and 4 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, rail). Active edges keep "eyes on the park" through the day; parking lots, blank institutional walls, rail and highway frontages drain street life.

Source: OpenStreetMap: cafes, restaurants, shops, schools, community centres, transit, parking, highways, rail. All data sources.

Connectivity

20% weightmeasured 85%
48.9 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 0 mapped paths/walkways and 15 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 8 street intersections within 100 m; 13 bus stops within a 400 m walk; 0 estimated access points across ~1,493 m of perimeter. low edge density, significant superblock penalty applied. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m2
Intersections within 100 m8
Paths/walkways (50 m)0
Sidewalk segments (50 m)15
Transit stops (400 m)13 (0 subway/GO, 0 streetcar/LRT, 13 bus)
Estimated entrances0
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter0.13
Park perimeter1,493 m

Source: Toronto Centreline V2 + Pedestrian Network + OSM transit stops. All data sources.

Amenity Diversity

20% weightinferred 30%
0.0 / 100

No amenities recorded.

Source: Toronto Parks & Recreation Facilities + OSM amenity tags. All data sources.

Natural Comfort

15% weightmeasured 75%
50.9 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: 10.9% estimated tree canopy; nearest waterbody ~440 m. Reading: exposed. Source coverage: treed_area, waterbodies. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage10.9%
Canopy area0.26 ha
Inside ravine system0.0%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)440 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon0
Tree density0.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)49.6
Sample points used46

Source: Toronto Treed Area + Ravine + Waterbodies + Street Tree Inventory. All data sources.

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
59.5 / 100

119 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (0 mid-rise, 119 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 5.6 m (~2 floors); 8.0 buildings per 100 m of 1,493 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 m119
Buildings within 50 m119
Avg edge height5.6 m (~2 floors)
Tallest edge building8.7 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)0
Low-rise (< 3 floors)119
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density7.97 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge0%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter1,493 m

Source: Toronto 3D Massing (building footprints + heights). All data sources.

Border Vacuum Risk

10% weightpartial 60%
12.0 risk

Border-vacuum factors within 50 m of the park: 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: OpenStreetMap: highways, rail, parking. All data sources.

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: Not loaded yet: Toronto Neighbourhood Profiles. All data sources.

Amenities (0)

No amenities recorded for this park.

Nearby active-edge features (23)

  • transit stop22 m
  • parking lot38 m
  • transit stop: Scarlett Rd at Eileen Ave59 m
  • transit stop: Scarlett Rd at Foxwell St64 m
  • parking lot84 m
  • restaurant: Yummy Yummy93 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision96 m
  • transit stop: Foxwell St at Scarlett Rd96 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision98 m
  • transit stop: Foxwell St at Scarlett Rd104 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision106 m
  • parking lot106 m
  • retail: BSC Moto Motorcycle109 m
  • retail: Lee's Printing116 m
  • parking lot119 m
  • parking lot128 m
  • rail144 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision145 m
  • rail185 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision192 m
  • parking lot195 m
  • rail196 m
  • rail: Galt Subdivision197 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureEtobicoke Hydro Green Space
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
    54th
  • Edge activation
    71th
  • Connectivity
    57th
  • Amenity diversity
    46th
  • Natural comfort
    65th
  • Enclosure
    39th

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 Space matters. 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.
  • 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.

Data sources

real Toronto data
  • City of Toronto Open Data: Green Spaces
    Polygon boundaries, official names, land classes. 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.
  • OpenStreetMap (Overpass API)
    Cafés, restaurants, retail, transit stops, parking, highways, rail.