The great Perth sprawl has copped a scathing appraisal of its performance recently with expert planners saying that it had been coasting on the idea of its impressive length for too long.
Experts reminded Perth that while length can be a good thing in some circumstances it really means nothing if you’re not using it properly. An expert in the field told The Times,
“Obviously Perth’s sprawl is a bit of a big deal in the locker room. Swinging that thang around like a Grandfather clock but when we look at truly functional cities. In truly sustainable cities we see that the load is shared in all directions. Girthy cities often perform better in giving the population what it needs. Leaving the population satisfied”
Perth’s sprawl has defended its satisfaction of the population by saying that a thicker city would take time to ease in and rushing the process could cause damage. A spokesperson told The Times,
“It’s all about a little urbanisation lube isn’t it. Like cool, Melbourne has girth but Perth has beautiful natural environments that it needs to protect. So maybe get off its back about girth, girth isn’t everything”
Experts were quick to jump on the spokesperson saying that width wasn’t the only consideration with girth. Saying that building up in the inner metro was the best way to address the sprawl. Such an expert stating,
“Typical long boys, always looking for excuses on why girth doesn’t matter but it does for Perth. We need to see more built-up areas rather than people desperately chasing a house & land package out in buttfuck just to find themselves copping the tip of the Perth sprawl”
Debate continues to rage over Perth’s sprawl. With the Government even agreeing to extend it to the shores of Britain if that would help bring in more migrant workers.