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.

No this is how ghettos were created to begin with...politicians use it to concentrate voters instead of actually helping people in need

No limit the number of humans on earth. Humans are a useless drain on earths resources with 8 Billion humans 2 billion more than earth can handle.

Yes, but only where high density residential buildings would be appropriate. Adhere to local zoning ordinances.

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

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.