Should the government incentivize the construction of high density residential buildings?

No

Yes, but in conjunction w/other initiatives to ensure this housing is adjacent to good public schools, health clinics, parks, community centers, addiction centers & affordable grocery & other stores/services required to live a balanced, healthy life.

No, there is enough empty buildings and houses to completely end involuntary homelessness. The government should incentivize the refurbishment of abandoned homes and buildings.

bit more nuanced than just yes or no - if constructing high density residential buildings their should be appropriate spaces such as balconies/communal gardens, this kind of space is often neglected when planning the building of such places

i think that certain areas should provide certain high density residential areas but not everywhere because of how expensive certain land is.

I think land developing needs to be slowed and people who want to move to a highly congested area need to live in the highly congested area

Should they probably be prioritized, yes. Now the method to achieve that goal is another issue. Sure (but not to exclude the large influx of people from the border increasing the population). I no longer in support of the subsidizing of housing but in the use of the current supply to max capacity rather than having vacancies in any are of housing.

No, the housing market shouldn’t be used as an investment setup. Housing should be not controlled by rental companies and multiple house owners.

I think there are multiple factors to consider. Location, size of complex, community impact, resources, ect. need to be factored in before answering a definitive yes or no.

Yes, but rather than focusing on 'luxury' apartments, focus on lower priced homes to make them more available to lower income households.

more apartment buildings should be constructed to offer affordable housing to people that take up less roojm.

I think we should stray away from high density by mandating a policy that has family only have one kid to progressively lower the population. This would be non-lethal, help people, and help the earth.

Yes but not for luxury homes, I’d like to see it used as ways to help homeless populations and to make housing more affordable.

We need more housing solutions that are motivated less by money and density and more by reasoned convenience and planning. Otherwise we are going to develop our urban areas into crowded, malfunctioning failure zones with more issues. Affordable housing is largely an upper class scam and a quick fix.

Yes, only if these residences are utilized for affordable housing for people in need. And they should not be privately owned

People should be able to live where they want to live, I don't think that the government should be telling people to live in residential buildings when there are benefits to living other ways, too. It just gives the government more power, and we don't want to be too suppressed under their wishes.

The government should neither subsidize nor discourage the construction of high density residential, this should be up to the market.

The government should make an effort to provide low cost housing to solve the homeless issue but not high density as that could breed disease.

without continous urban development realtors would be out of a job alot of people lose there jobs regaurdless of the outcome just leave it alone

It depends on the reasoning behind this. If it is to provide housing for homeless or low income residential buildings, then yes. If these incentives for residential buildings is planned well and any concerns the community may have are discussed, then yes.

The government should prioritize regulating rent. Incentivizing high-density residential buildings is only one, very small, step.

Well, aren’t there almost 16 million vacant houses across the us? why not just use those for homeless people? there is no reason why there needs to be that many vacant houses and there’s still homeless people.

Yes. The lowered value of other rental properties will lower rent, and that will be a good thing. Rent should be more affordable, and raising the supply to accommodate for the demand will help achieve that.

Yes up to a certain point so where its not crowded and the area around these buildings are still accessible

I feel like it depends on the place. If it's an area with a low-population, large apartments and complexes like that would only harm the environment there. But in an area with more people than it can support, not doing so could cause problems.

Yes, but at a lower price for rent or mortgage due to the less space provided and still leave space for neighbourhoods

There should be more affordable housing in densely populated areas instead of luxury lofts, these luxury lofts will create a domino effect of modern retail and grocery areas which will have many low-income families out of these areas because they cannot afford to live in these expensive neighborhoods.

Yes, though it should be less extravagant and more affordable housing which can be used for both government housing as well as lower income housing

We should turn already existing abandoned buildings into homes for the homeless instead of tearing them down

Yes, only if it is ensured that the buildings will be responsibly managed and not be owned by corporate landlords

Yes, and deploy all of the various strategies for harnessing development to public benefit in a uniform and transparent way. Mitigation, density bonuses, TDM, setbacks, maintenance agreements, easements, etc. The only alternate choice is to comprehensively reform the property tax and zoning systems.

I think it depends on the area. You don't want it over-crowded. Also, doing that could raise property taxes. I think ran down areas should have some type of renovation.

Only in communities with low population. Most of the people in the US already live in just half the states. This will help poorer states and countries with their economies and populations.

No, but we should create incentives for multi-familing buildings (apt. bldgs) to rent out a portion of units (ie <5%) to lower income people. This allows a lower income family to have opportunity to live in a middle/high income place, creating better opportunities for them to meet other people and get better jobs.

Yes, but the buildings should still be of quality living conditions, not made for parking as many people as possible in the smallest area possible.

Yes but only allow people to buy spots in these building if theres going to be 3 people or less in each apartment.

Depends on where this building is taking place it shouldn't be incentivized in a lower population to make more people move out there.

In areas of new construction, yes. Changing existing zoning where people bought in to single family home neighborhood, no

I think that people can live wherever they want and it isn't up to the government to make said buildings.

Yes, and there should be a moratorium on any new single-unit housing builds, be it individual homes or suburban housing plans filled with single units.

Only in large cities, or cities that have a lot of homeless people. They should focus onthe construction of shelter .

Only if you are allocating affordable options for families and not tearing down families homes for less than homes are worth

No, there are already plenty of abandoned and run down apartment buildings and houses that could use work done in big cities all across the country. This provides training and jobs as well as a new beginning for houseless individuals, plus a place to stay when theyre done working.

No, high density residential building would most likely have undesirable living conditions however we should try and fix how we deal with homeless people.

Yes, but make sure that any government created residential areas reign under full control of the government with no privatization. These neighborhoods/complexes should have set rent that shouldn't increase or lower for anyone.