Skip to content
Toronto Parks Atlas
Hubbard Park, site photograph
Back to map
Parkettecluster ·Walkable Mid-Rise Neighbourhood Parks (enclosure-leaning)North Riverdale (68)confidence moderate

Hubbard Park

Parkette, one of the city's strongest overall (score 57, rank ~98th percentile). Strongest: connectivity; weakest: natural comfort.

Photo by Lipika Saha via Google Places · cached 5/9/2026

Hubbard Park scores 56.9 / 100. Strongest dimensions: enclosure / eyes on park and connectivity. Weakest: amenity diversity (21). Border-vacuum risk is low. This score is a transparent reading of Jane Jacobs-style vitality factors, not a definitive judgment.

Best fora quiet siteveryday neighbourhood use

Area · 0.80 ha

What's here

Recreation
Garden
Facilities
Benches
Vitality Score
57/100

Weighted across six dimensions · confidence 68%

Data Confidence
56.9 / 100
Citywide
98th
of all 3,788 parks
Among Parkette
99th
same primary typology
Expected for similar parks
37
median in small Parkette (n=247)
Performance gap
+20
raw − expected · context confidence high
strong 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. Connectivity, transit, and edge conditions read at a glance.
Hubbard Park, aerial top-down view
Top-down view.City of Toronto orthophoto, ~8 cm/px. Reads the park’s footprint, paths, treed area, and edge conditions from above. City of Toronto Orthophoto · cot_ortho most-current MapServer · cached 5/9/2026.

Boundary: OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL).

Explain this score

Where did the 57 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
Connectivity79 · p98
+5.9
Amenity Diversity21 · p69
-5.8
Enclosure / Eyes on Park88 · p95
+3.8
Border Vacuum Risk24 (risk)
+2.6
Edge Activation53 · p97
+0.8
Natural Comfort47 · p51
-0.5

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

Hubbard Park works because its connectivity score (79) is one of the city's strongest and its edge activation (53) is also top decile (30 transit stops sit within a 400 m walk; 20 intersections fall within 100 m of the edge).

What limits this park

.

Most distinctive characteristic

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

Jacobs reading

Hubbard Park 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 (47): 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 57 versus an expected 37 for similar parks (small Parkette) (gap +20).

Typology classification

confidence 70%
Parkette

Classified as Parkette: small (7960 m²) with strong building frontage (11.1 per 100 m)

Edge Activation

25% weightpartial 60%
53.4 / 100

Within 100 m of the park edge: 35 active uses (transit_stop, restaurant, retail, cafe) and 4 dead/hostile uses (parking_lot, highway). 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%
79.4 / 100

Connectivity blends paths, intersections, transit, entrances, and edge density. This park has 19 mapped paths/walkways and 26 sidewalk segments within 50 m; 20 street intersections within 100 m; 30 transit stops within a 400 m walk; 7 estimated access points across ~433 m of perimeter. edge density is healthy, no superblock penalty. Source coverage: centreline, pedestrian_network, transit_osm.

Streets within 25 m17
Intersections within 100 m20
Paths/walkways (50 m)19
Sidewalk segments (50 m)26
Transit stops (400 m)30
Estimated entrances7
Edge connections / 100 m perimeter3.93
Park perimeter433 m

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

Amenity Diversity

20% weightmeasured 75%
21.0 / 100

2 distinct amenity types in the park (bench, garden). 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% weightpartial 45%
46.7 / 100

Natural-comfort components for this park: ~3.5% effective canopy (0.0% from contiguous tree polygons + scattered tree density); 12.5% inside the ravine system; nearest waterbody ~161 m; 5 city-mapped trees inside the polygon (5.0/ha). Reading: water-cooled. Source coverage: ravine, waterbodies, street_trees. Impervious surface is approximated (Toronto's authoritative layer ships only as a raster GeoTIFF).

Canopy coverage0.0%
Canopy area0.00 ha
Inside ravine system12.5%
Water surface inside park0.0%
Nearest water (if outside park)161 m
Estimated green100.0%
City-mapped trees inside polygon5
Tree density5.0 / ha
Cover diversity (Shannon, 0 to 100)54.4
Sample points used56

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

Enclosure / Eyes on Park

10% weightmeasured 80%
88.4 / 100

48 buildings within 25 m of the park edge (15 mid-rise, 33 low-rise, 0 tower); avg edge height 9.0 m (~3 floors); 11.1 buildings per 100 m of 433 m perimeter (strong frontage density); edges are at a Jacobs-scale walkable mid-rise (3 to 7 floors); no towers immediately adjacent. "Eyes on the park" come strongest from the 15 mid-rise edge buildings.

Buildings within 25 m48
Buildings within 50 m48
Avg edge height9.0 m (~3 floors)
Tallest edge building39.2 m
Mid-rise (3 to 7 floors)15
Low-rise (< 3 floors)33
Towers (≥ 13 floors)0
Frontage density11.09 per 100 m perimeter
Mid-rise share of edge31%
Tower share of edge0%
Blank-edge share (proxy)0%
Park perimeter433 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: Gerrard, 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 (2 types · 16 records)

  • bench
  • garden

Nearby active-edge features (77)

  • transit stop: St. Matthews Road3 m
  • transit stop: St. Matthews Road8 m
  • transit stop: St. Matthews Road12 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East15 m
  • transit stop: Broadview Avenue24 m
  • parking lot28 m
  • transit stop: Blackburn Street33 m
  • restaurant: Chicken Plus40 m
  • transit stop: Blackburn Street41 m
  • restaurant: Boba Boy42 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East44 m
  • parking lot: Gerrard44 m
  • retail48 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East51 m
  • retail51 m
  • parking lot53 m
  • restaurant: Vital-Life Vegan Rastarant58 m
  • transit stop: Broadview Avenue58 m
  • restaurant: Apollo61 m
  • transit stop: Gerrard Street East65 m
  • restaurant: Oji Seichi66 m
  • highway: Don Valley Parkway66 m
  • restaurant: A&W71 m
  • transit stop: Broadview Avenue71 m
  • retail: Cafe Despensary73 m
  • restaurant: O'Somae76 m
  • restaurant: Sushi Bar78 m
  • retail: Dong Ming Hong Trading78 m
  • retail: One Plus One Hair Salon80 m
  • retail: Tung Hing Bakery82 m
  • transit stop: Jack Layton Way, Bridgepoint Health84 m
  • cafe: Issho Bakery85 m
  • retail: Yong Xing Fruits & Vegatables88 m
  • restaurant: Supreme Taste89 m
  • retail: The Frame Maker II89 m
  • transit stop: Jack Layton Way, Bridgepoint Health90 m
  • restaurant: hanoi 3 seasons95 m
  • restaurant: Wok & Roast Chinese BBq96 m
  • retail: Wong’s Aquarium98 m
  • retail: Charlotte Nail Spa100 m
  • retail: Feng Rong Spa101 m
  • retail: Easy Living Depot102 m
  • retail105 m
  • retail: Galaxy Fresh Foods107 m
  • retail109 m
  • retail110 m
  • retail: bikeSauce113 m
  • retail: Shisha King Toronto117 m
  • parking lot118 m
  • retail: Sonnam Computer120 m
  • retail: Jiahua Trading Company121 m
  • retail: Wonder Spa122 m
  • restaurant: Completo123 m
  • restaurant: Farside125 m
  • retail: Galaxy Salon125 m
  • retail: ONYX Chocolates129 m
  • retail: Second Journey Thrift133 m
  • parking lot138 m
  • restaurant: Saigon Pai150 m
  • retail: Dragon Hobby155 m
  • retail: Rainbow Hair Salon158 m
  • retail: Good Cheese160 m
  • restaurant: New Restaurant161 m
  • retail: New Bakery165 m
  • retail: Golden Shrine Trading170 m
  • retail: High Hand171 m
  • restaurant: Dumpling House174 m
  • retail: Wagu Vape178 m
  • transit stop: Mount Stephen Street178 m
  • retail: Hair Co181 m
  • restaurant: Pho House188 m
  • retail192 m
  • rail: GO Transit - Bala Subdivision194 m
  • retail197 m
  • transit stop: Mount Stephen Street198 m
  • transit stop: Langley Avenue, Bridgepoint Health Centre198 m
  • transit stop: Langley Avenue, Bridgepoint Health Centre199 m

Park profile

Five-axis radar across the structural dimensions.

Edge ActivationConnectivityAmenity DiversityNatural ComfortEnclosureHubbard Park
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
    98th
  • Edge activation
    97th
  • Connectivity
    98th
  • Amenity diversity
    69th
  • Natural comfort
    51th
  • Enclosure
    95th

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.

Visitor signals

Public attention measured by Google Places aggregates. This proxies attention, not occupancy. Aggregate-only: no usernames, no review text, no extra photos beyond the cached hero.

high-confidence match
Visitor signal score30 / 100
30.3 / 100

p18 citywide · p16 within Parkette

Volume (saturated)1
Density / ha5
Rating contribution95
Match dampener×1.00
Average rating
★ 4.8
out of 5
Ratings collected
4
total reviews
Photos uploaded
10
total contributors

Source: Google Places API · match high (0.93 composite confidence) · last refreshed 5/9/2026. Privacy contract. Measures public attention, not occupancy.

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 Hubbard Parkmatters. 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.

  • 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

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.