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.

The government should not incentive it, nor should the federal government reform zoning laws. Zoning laws should be left to state governments and local zoning boards

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.

Government should neither incentive nor disincentivze its construction. People should be able to build what they want on their own property.

They should only incentivize the construction of the conversion of existing abandoned properties into high density housing. Not mass gentrification.

This was and has been implemented as housing projects in big cities that quickly fell apart due to banking usury and racism

In my view, it can be beneficial for the government to encourage the construction of high-density residential buildings. By promoting the development of such structures, the government can address housing shortages in urban areas, promote efficient land use, and potentially reduce urban sprawl. High-density housing can also contribute to a sense of community and facilitate access to amenities and public transportation, fostering sustainable and livable urban environments.

Yes, but by repealing current zoning laws that favor single-family housing over high-density housing

Yes, but only by reducing the scope of zoning laws to allow developers to provide these forms of housing as they are demanded.

Yes, but also regulate the management and maintenance of such spaces and verify the (or require a base level of) integrity of companies who run and operate them.

Yes, as long as there are measures too ensure green spaces, access to public transit, limits on height, and importance to aesthetic beauty.

Not subsidies but incentives in the form of favorable (liberal) zoning rules and building codes that allow greater housing supply.

Yes, because if a building is not being used and has been sitting there for a while, might as well turn it into an apartment.

I believe this depends on the area. I would say to pritorize high density residental buildings in cities that already have around 10-20 high-rise buildings. Also that the buildings should be constructed in a way to not separate and isolate people, but rather made to bring people together. Of course each person's room would let the person have privacy. However, I believe that the rest of the building should be made in ways to get the residents to connect with one another.

Architects and city planners and communities can all work together to transform empty and abandoned buildings into architecturally/esthetically pleasing the high density residential buildings while conforming to environmental requirements while keeping or upgrading the 'character' of neighborhoods.

in places like New York and California yes because they have very high population but in places like Montana where population is low no

We need more apartments because the population is growing quickly, but houses are very important, for families and not everyone should live in an apartment.

I think the answer would be no for me, because these buildings would take up more space that could have been used to plant more trees.

Yes, high density AFFORDABLE residential buildings which do not cause property taxes to skyrocket and push out long-standing residents, should be incentivized.

In municipal areas where high housing density is required and in areas that will not suffer environmental degradation only.

Yes because means more people but no cause it will also make property for everybody more expensive I think.

Yes, we should also be concerned with the availability of vacant homes and should be funding their refurbishment. In terms of the current question these developments should be in coordination with concern over adequate adjacent infrastructure

If buildings can be developed from other empty or abandoned buildings they should focus on shelters for the homeless, things that are needed.

The government should not "incentivize" housing types, it should remove troublesome regulation that disincentivizes certain construction types.

Yes but also there is a lot of under utilized housing that could be rehabilted into multi family dwellings.

Yes, and zoning laws need to be changed to allow for more public space and residency, and housing should be free and accessible to all citizens.

I would like to see old abandoned buildings like malls actually be turned into something useful like housing but we do not need to be building mega buildings everywhere unless they are very eco-friendly.

No, the government shouldn't help any company. If they want to give money away, give the people money for housing directly.

This can help on reusing old buildings that are still in good condition to be used for housing for people that might not have a place to live

Yes, in major cities. Suburbia is a part of American culture and should also be preserved simultaneously.

we should give people adequate and affordable housing but also we should have too many buildings to the point where they take over natural spaces

We need affordable living and this could be a solution in theory. Just hoping that landlords won't be able to sustainably jack up prices if we do get more high density residential buildings.

If the area is under constant construction for more than 3-4 years, then the residents should get something.

Yes, in specific regions where they are needed or, in some cases, in an attempt to bolster local economies.

yes but make sure its still safe so nothing can go wrong and if in that precedent it minimizes injury or loss

Yes, but they shouldn't be quite the same as normal housing. They should be specifically geared towards helping homeless individuals.

They should just create a building for all the homeless/poor people to live and if you don't want it its not our fault

I feel that yes while old buildings that are falling apart should be knocked down and rebuilt but if you add to many homes into an area then it will be over crowded and no enough space for those already there

This would depend upon whom they would be available. Would they be for profit, even with government incentives? Would they be available to address a homeless situation?

With the increase of populations in cities, Building more apartments or living spaces is necessary. Yes but to an extent, and to keep it humane living condition.

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