A historic 70 per cent sprawl/30 per cent infill rate resulted in Perth’s current population of only 2.1 million occupying a 150-kilometre coastal stretch. Presenting maps showing where 1.4 million new residents were planned to slot in, WAtoday asked readers open-ended questions on how they felt about a city of 3.5 million, and what concerned them most. The 200 emails received showed recurrent themes and topics, with readers overwhelmingly pessimistic about predictions of a future Big Perth. Some said they felt “sick”, others “scared” about the impact on the places they loved. “People who crave high density are mad. Why actively attempt to destroy a great Aussie lifestyle? We need space ... not a crowd. Please stop this madness,” one said. Only 10 people (5 per cent) of the 200 expressed excitement, saying things like 1.2 million was not nearly a big enough city, that we should aim to be at least the third largest Australian city, and that 5 million would work best. “If handled well, [this] can increase Perth’s prosperity. It can increase housing diversity and housing affordability,” one said.

“It can generate good jobs in the localities where workers live. It can reduce travel times and road congestion. It can help preserve Perth’s biodiversity. Rather than thinking of population growth as a problem, it should be planned for as an opportunity.” But almost all of the handful of “positives” were still concerned about sprawl, infill or both. Overall, more respondents voiced concerns about urban sprawl than any other topic. One described Perth as like a computer game, “gobbling up” remnant vegetation north and south along the coast. Another likened it to a cancer cell.

“It is most apparent from the air — flying back from up north you come over the remnant veg, then you see recent clearing, then the yellow sand, then the new basically tree-less suburbs, and finally you see established suburbs with some vegetation," one reader said. "It is mainly the latter that infill targets, and at least some of this vegetation would go in the process." “Focus needs to be on minimising sprawl and reducing the footprint of new homes going forward,” said another. Next biggest on the list of concerns was the environment. People repeatedly voiced worries about loss of backyards, tree canopy, public open space, bushland, biodiversity, and the urban heat-island effect. "Urban heatsink effect could make areas horrible to live in if it's not curbed with large trees, and copypasting miles of generic suburbs as they do currently will end in disaster," said one. New estates hug the freeways south of Perth. Credit:Hamish Hastie

“We have a lacklustre building code, and the sprawl and the lack of care means we have had the worst construction and demolition recycling, lowest household recycling, continuing low urban density and no emphasis on sculpting a cultural landscape,” said another. To our readers, infill emerged as a paradox: both potential enemy, and potential solution. The third biggest concern for readers was infill. Some sketched their visions of better infill and more diverse housing choices. Repeatedly, many used the term “boxes” to describe the kinds of homes they didn’t want. “As a half of a 30/40s DINK couple, we want to be able to buy a detached small home,” one explained. “Having said that, I don’t want a cookie-cutter style ... I also don’t necessarily want to live closer to the city. Something around an 80-90 square metre home with about the same land and a double garage would suit us perfectly.”

Readers voiced worries about poor infill design and the resulting impact on the lifestyle we hold dear, talking about loss of tree canopy and public open space, concrete jungles and urban heat islands. But people weren’t either pro-sprawl or pro-infill as the peddlers of the NIMBY label would have us believe. Most were worried about the negative impacts of both sprawl and infill. And their essential fears were the same for both: loss of greenery and open space, the severing of access to nature, both for its own sake and for the wellbeing it offered people. This backs up recent survey results revealing one of the biggest things Perth people value is this city’s natural environment; the outdoor lifestyle remains a crucial part of Perth’s identity and a key point of difference from the eastern capitals. People said this quality of life was too precious to lose. If they had to drive far from the city for space and greenery, they would.

“I've lived in an apartment in trendy South Brisbane. I've lived in one of Melbourne's most sought after (and expensive) suburbs — Richmond. Neither of those experiences comes close to the peace, serenity and pure joy of living in my house on my 800 metre block in Perth's eastern suburbs. There's part of the problem,” one wise reader observed. Another said the fact Perth was still growing on the outskirts showed two things. “People don't want the type of living that the current densification policies are serving up. They want family-friendly communities where their kids can play in backyards and sometimes on the street,” they said. “[Also], current densification policies are not providing housing that most can afford.” Readers’ suggestions weren’t NIMBYish at all. Some asked for a more aggressive approach to high density “where appropriate”.

They asked for medium to high-density growth closer to the city, to bring more efficient public transport, more customers for retail and food outlets, more new businesses and more competition. In some Perth suburbs, rezoning allows infill where it makes sense - such as this apartment block springing up on busy Riseley Street opposite Garden City shopping centre. In others suburbs, developments are making far less sense to locals. Credit:Emma Young For “medium-rise, good-quality apartments with far more public open space in between.” For these areas to have culture and atmosphere, and preserve the “vast green and public spaces that make Perth unique.” For reasonable conservation of older areas, including family homes, trees and gardens, in areas not along rail lines or near roads with high-frequency bus services.