Killing the Great Australian Dream – Limit urban sprawl, says Freo mayor Brad Pettit – The West Australian

Call for urban boundary to define Perth’s metropolitan area rather than allow for continued growth.

Source: Limit urban sprawl, says Freo mayor Brad Pettit – The West Australian

As long as I can remember I have just wanted a house to live in, just like I grew up in. The block may not be as big no huge gum tree in the back yard to climb and play in but it’s pretty damn close. I’m lucky to have a house which has become a home for my family. Giving me a chance to give my child some of the great experiences I had growing up.

A safe place to play, invite friends to come over and play with, The great Aussie BBQ which we have had many with friends and family. Place for pets to roam freely, chicken taking care of our kitchen scraps, rewarding us with eggs for not throwing it in the rubbish, fruit trees, veggie garden, aquaponics for fish and herbs, giving my little boy and education on where food comes from and how to practically use our waste, with worm farms, compost, bokashi, solider fly farms etc great place for bees to live and another bonus of honey while pollinating our 15 so fruit trees..

Non of this will exist in Brads high rises, everything for rubbish will need to be collected and processed just like a large factory, not exactly living is it?

I have also had the good fortune to live all around the world in high density cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, KL, Miami, NY, London.

That’s when I realized how lucky we are in Australia with the life style we have.

While in these city you see every time there is an accident, fire, natural disaster, disease out break, the higher the density the greater the casualty rates.

Now to think that the only way we can be environmentally friendly is to live in high density areas is just crap. It might be the dumbest easy solution? But with the right mixture of incentives for business, government departments and jobs to develop out with the sprawl, and finding incentives  to encourage people to live with a certain distance of their jobs. We can maintain a live style worth having while controlling our foot print.

Or as Paul says build new hubs to drive businesses away from one hub and made several more satellites cities, like Mandurah, Joondalup and Midland.

Sooner or later cars will not run on fossil fuels, fixing the pollution argument, the style of car we drive in 20 yrs maybe completely different.

So while Brad Pettitt our Mayor is determined to force his personal ideology on the rest of us, even though he doesn’t seem to practice what he preaches, it should send a clear message to the wider community if guy runs for state or federal government, he’s the guy you want to vote for if you like living in a  hi-rise Dog box, no car, surrounded by concrete, no tree canopy, concrete parks and booze barns, while he lives in a house with a garden across from a great green oasis with his 2 cars parked out front. While your rates increase each year to fund he’s personally ideology and so he can give our assets for free for business to profit off while, spending your money on his jet set junket trips overseas. Sounds good right?

Cost of Fremantle Mayors Rate Payer Funded Junket, Doubles

He seems perfect for politics, a real hypocrite no?

But I’ll be voting to live not just to exist in a concrete jungle.

Fremantle Made Junkets


Leave a Reply


  1. Bob Law. says:

    ‘ Urban sprawl ‘ is an ideological word, duplicitous and designed to confuse; there is no such thing in Australian capital cities, it is planned urban expansion with the provision of infrastructure built in at the time of development.
    There has never been any unplanned growth of Australian urban centres since before World War II.
    It is noteworthy that the main proponents of high rise high density housing for people are totalitarian regimes ( e.g.. communist are the most infamous ); they are everywhere a failure of monumental proportions.
    Also it is expensive housing; medium density is the type of housing most suited to some people if higher density is the choice and there is a demand and it is the most economical ( low rise simple conventional construction ).
    It is called the ‘ stack and pack ‘ ideology of Agenda 21.

    • Mark says:

      I think the agenda 21 crowd have tried to clean up their act and have partly re branded as one planet, same agenda just a brand relaunch. Just a little more suit to attract the some more of the younger crowd

      • Joe says:

        Bob Law, you need to write an article for the thinking allowed column in the Fremantle Herald. People not aware of Agenda 21. Very interesting read.

        Shorten wanting to lower the voting age to 16 as younger population easily manipulated but as they mature they tend to think more of their future and consequences of their actions therefor they tend to look more closely at policies and what will be of benefit to themselves those around them and Australia as a whole.

  2. freoishome says:

    If I am the ‘Paul’ you are referring to Mark, I am opposed to satellite cities like Mandurah, Joondalup, etc. That is sprawl.

    I favour totally separate cities. My main drive is to get more people thinking about having at least two other Metros in WA, eg, Great Southern and Pilbara, as Perth cannot be “All things, to all, in perpetuity”. So better to start thinking, planning and opening up land for that now. Each being 500 sq kms, a developers dream.

    Although the money for regions has helped some towns grow a little. They are too small to get development at a scale that can be competitive. These regions need a metro within reasonable travelling distance, to get the services, industrial support and labour force required to support sustainable lifestyle. Eg, Brickworks, prefabrication for timber, roofing, joinery, window frames, supply of plumbing, electrical, white goods, furniture, kitchens and bathrooms. These in themselves needs more basic material supply in quantities that are shipped not driven.

    The ABC currently has a ‘regions’ focus, the current town being Toowoomba Qld. This is what the east coast and Canberra think of as a regional country town. Yet it is bigger than Bunbury, Albany, Geraldton and Carnavon put together! The type of place that as it gets BIGGER, will attract metro dwellers to relocate. As the Q&A programme reported, people want to get away from Australia’s ‘Mega’ cities, as they become more difficult to get around and expensive to live in. But how can a town like Toowoomba grow and still retain its liveability.

    Instead, the WA pollies and people of influence, are doing all they can with their Perth centric, one eyed view to make Perth a Mega City, and are ignoring the wisdom of those in the east who know what it is like to sacrifice liveability. Mark outlines his idea of liveability, that is what mega cities sacrifice.

    CUSP has favoured increasing inner city density, but never High rise. They have recommended medium density close to Metro Activity centres, phasing height reduction quite rapidly into the suburbs. So essentially the Medium density is within walking and or a short bike ride into the center of the Activity centre. I think most of their ideas seem to favour about 5-6 storeys, rarely up as high as 9, adjacent to the epicentre. I don’t think that is very different from what has happened as suburbs have become popular, and become centres as an evolutionary process.

    • Mark says:

      Paul most people don’t want to live in these medium concrete piles.
      If they did the market would make more of them.
      Why do u think the people are moving out of cities to avoid living in shit like this.
      its the chance to do have a house to make a home to raise a family.
      just got back from Europe on a business trip, so many people want to talk about australia, a house, a yard, beaches, space, no one coming to Australia has a dream of living in a concrete 6 story shoe box.
      Its space and freedom,
      When you moved to Australia was it with the idea of moving into a medium density block.
      Paul putting 50 kms or 500kms between the centres makes no difference how people live, still have to build or the same infrastructure. In many cases repeat more of it. Australia’s population is to small for it and the world population rapidly growing is the part of the problem.

%d bloggers like this: