Residential development is growing rapidly in the coastal suburbs of the North West and South West corridors, yet working residents have no major employment base (on a metropolitan scale) within the region and many must travel to the inner sector each day for work.

To attempt to alleviate the problems of urban sprawl and low employment self-sufficiency in outer sectors of the Perth Metropolitan area, there are three potential areas of focus for the planning system.

1. Increasing residential density in the inner and middle sectors enables people the choice to live in closer proximity to their place of work. This also maintains a focus on the CBD as the primary strategic employment centre in Perth, strengthening industry and employment to compete with other capital cities in the global economy.

2. Boosting transport infrastructure spending to improve existing rail and bus services, as well as adding new services, enables people living in regional areas to efficiently and effectively access their place of work.

3. Targeting specific strategic industries or new projects in the outer sector, and improvement to supply chains for existing industries, increases the diversity and number of businesses locating in the sub-regions where the largest residential population growth occurs. This results in a net increase in high quality job share for outer residents.

A combination of these three approaches is required to achieve the best and most feasible results for the Perth Metropolitan area. Increasing residential density in inner areas can only contribute so much to solving the problem due to land constraints, affordability and differing views on what constitutes ‘lifestyle’. However, a dedicated focus on achieving Network city aims may bring about opportunities for increasing density in inner urban areas on existing public transport routes with good access to amenity centres.

Improving or adding train and bus services can reduce private time and monetary costs involved in travelling to work each day. However, provision of train lines and stations is costly and constrained by the large public sector investment required. In addition, evidence from around Perth shows that even in areas reasonably well-serviced by public transport, often less than 30% of commuters will actually use this method of travel.

Completely decentralising strategic employment away from the Perth Central Area diminishes agglomeration benefits for businesses, including economies of scale for specialisation and trade; proximity to clients, suppliers and competitors for spontaneous innovative exchanges and face-to-face networking opportunities; and proximity to specific infrastructure such as universities and transport hubs. This market behaviour makes it difficult to encourage industries to locate in outer local government areas without a concentrated effort to make the move beneficial.

Agglomeration benefits can be fostered on a smaller scale in regional centres; however they need a critical mass of activity to be successful. This requires certain centres to be designated ‘strategic’ – as places in which strategic employment is encouraged and closely monitored and prioritised in terms of transport and infrastructure spending.

Decision rules about which centres should assume this role must be agreed upon and made explicit under the Activity Centres Framework. These can include factors such as an existing employment base, physical infrastructure or natural advantage and relative return on investment.

Decisions as to the types of industries to target should also be made on a region-wide or preferably state-wide basis. This supports specialisation and the development of economies of scale, reduces the need for major infrastructure duplication and allows specific industries to be fostered in the regional area with the greatest existing or intended advantage.

Weighing the financial, social and environmental costs and benefits is a necessary step in determining how much of each approach should be implemented. How can we measure and prioritise these factors?

We need to look beyond the quick fix, short term solution of releasing more land further out on the urban fringe, to the long term implications of such a myopic development strategy.

It may seem cheaper to build on greenfield sites on the outskirts of the city than in the inner suburbs, but it is simply a false economy.

When you consider, for example, that 75 percent of people who live in Perth’s sprawling North-West corridor have to commute to work outside of the corridor – their weekly fuel bill soon casts a greater shadow than their mortgage. How is this affordable?

There are also big social ramifications. With longer commutes, there is less time for family or for building a sense of community; with rising transport costs, there is little disposable income to go around. People in outer suburbs become increasingly marginalised.

In a recent address to councils, planners and transport experts in Melbourne, Curtin University’s Professor Peter Newman argued that governments needed to look at the real costs of building on the fringes, including the burden of commuting and associated emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The old economy based around cars and extending further out has been a proven failure,” he said, maintaining that governments could save up to $85,000 per new housing lot over 50 years if they instead built in existing suburbs close to public transport.

We need a paradigm shift in our attitude to housing. Governments need to start articulating the benefits of higher density living – lower transport costs, access to better amenities, proximity to knowledge generating employment, greater sense of community – at the same time as generating the means by which all socio-economic groups can access it.

Some people choose to live further out because they want a certain kind of lifestyle, but many are simply forced out into the boondocks because they see it as the only way they can enter the housing market.

We need to give people options and this means making high density attractive and affordable. It means creating good public space that meets the demands of all members of society. In a sense, we need to give them the same sense of security that comes with a backyard – a safe, clean space to walk their dog, go for a run or take the kids to the park.

The redevelopment in Stirling is a great example of forward thinking in urban regeneration. It’s based around urban density and a train station and Stirling itself is becoming a fairly major employment zone.

However, given the way the area has evolved, with industrial and higher density concentrations, it has significant advantages over other inner ring centres. It will take a fair amount of political willpower to enable similar developments in the western suburbs where ratepayers have a vested interest in preventing high density.

High density is not going to please everyone. There will always be a demand for land, for a backyard, for a place to park the boat. It’s part of who we are. But there needs to be a strong understanding by the powers that be that if they continue to release land on the outskirts of town it is only a  part of the overall equation.

Any development must also factor in the other key driving factors of any economy – labour, capital and enterprise. This means transport networks, as well as investment in significant infrastructure that encourages strategic industries and generates knowledge intensive employment.

The onus is on our leaders to drive the market and to provide attractive, affordable options. The majority of the population may still be thinking short term, but we need the political will to make decisions that are sustainable for the long term.