For Durham Region's archaic planning standards, to them this is indeed a "model 21st century community".More single family homes and more of the same idiotic cul-de-sac street grid - nothing is walk-able except maybe the local school or grass patch. Everything else will require car. Wasn't Seaton supposed to be a model 21st century community. What a failure of planning.
Interesting, this probably is the reason. The necessity for modern-day/suburban-style road sightlines, widths, and turn radii does make sense. Utilities vehicles, garbage/fire trucks etc are all massive, and efficiency of ultra low speed limits and full stops every 50m probably does throttle movement. Bringing any vehicle larger than a sedan through a tight grid of 19th C type roads and lanes can be more than a hassle, so I wouldn't doubt it being written in as a nonstarter.minimum servicing needs of today. Local municipalities need minimum sight triangles, road widths, curve radii, parking spaces, etc.
Developers are always pushing for smaller units. Municipalities push back.
It actually doesn't make sense. There is strong evidence that wider lanes lead to speeding and are more dangerous than narrow lanes. Wider turn radii also endanger pedestrians. We have the evidence that these things are bad, but many cities are living in the dark ages. We also know from European examples that narrow roads with sharp turns work just fine in residential neighborhoods.The necessity for modern-day/suburban-style road sightlines, widths, and turn radii does make sense.