High density housing refers to housing developments with a higher population density than average. For example, high rise apartments are considered high density, especially in comparison to single-family homes or condominiums. High density real estate can also be developed from empty or abandoned buildings. For instance, old warehouses can be renovated and turned into luxury lofts. Further, commercial buildings that are no longer in use can be refitted into high-rise apartments. Opponents argue that more housing will lower the value of their home (or rental units) and change the “character” of neighborhoods. Proponents argue that the buildings are more environmentally friendly than single family homes will lower housing costs for people who cannot afford large homes.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Yes
@9LNMYX71yr1Y
You fools if you cram too many people into little buildings that are crammed close together it will make traffic worse than it is and the schools will be way to crowded. We don't have the infrastructure to support it. If you think we do, you're wrong, and if you think that doesn't matter, you are an idiot.
@9LNTJNM1yr1Y
High density residential buildings will always cram the current population in the local city. High density residential buildings will always need high density parking space. If there is no parking space, the residents will always compete for parking, further cramming the space for other drivers to park in. High density buildings also further stray the city's money from practical purposes, like repairs all over the city.
@9LNCPD9Republican1yr1Y
They are a breeding ground for poor management to make people’s lives hell. Along with going along with china. taller is not the way. underground inst either. why isnt anyone just planning for floating houses and such? if the so called global warming were to take place. its already happening.
@9LJQLXW1yr1Y
We can raise campaigns and support a funding. For example help others build a home if we cant offered a home. Help a funding land for someone every 3 months for at least a limit amount of time.
@9LTDTR81yr1Y
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.
@9M7T7R7 1yr1Y
No, there is enough empty buildings and houses to completely end involuntary homelessness. The government should incentivize the refurbishment of abandoned homes and buildings.
I agree we should promote refurbishment of empty buildings in stable and growing metros where there is demand, including conversions of old office space into residential units. Existing housing stock still needs to be replaced over time so we should allow construction where there is demand for it.
Empty homes in remote areas with no access to jobs are not particularly useful. Transit access is necessary as well for low income residents with limited access to cars.
@9M7ZNG51yr1Y
Yes, the government should incentivize the construction of high density residential buildings, and keep the prices reasonable.
@9MCHM9ZLibertarian1yr1Y
The government should neither subsidize nor discourage the construction of high density residential, this should be up to the market.
@9TYJFHK10mos10MO
Many local governments outright ban the building of anything denser than a single-family home with large lawns.
Pressuring municipalities to loosen these restrictions would "encourage" higher-density housing.
@B2FS9HS6mos6MO
Yes, the buildings are more environmentally friendly than single family homes will lower housing costs for people who cannot afford large homes
@9S2PG4311mos11MO
All three branches of government should in Construction of high density residential buildings. But these residential buildings must Be built in such a way that allows for community, socialization, and there must be an urban plan surrounding them that encourages local businesses and pedestrian policies.
@9LW3ZGY1yr1Y
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
@9TX83LT10mos10MO
No because programs have been used more for social engineering purposes (to force single home neighborhoods to transform into dense urban neighborhoods) than to simply provide more affordable housing.
@9TYJFHK10mos10MO
Such programs do not exist.
Most towns outright ban the construction of anything than large-lawn single-family residential.
If the people want single-family houses, they'll buy them. If they want duplexes or apartments, those options shouldn't be arbitrarily blocked by zoning codes.
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
Would you prefer to live in a high-density residential building if it meant shorter commutes and more amenities? Why or why not?
@9TSWZCVWomen’s Equality10mos10MO
Yes, with more amenities, I would be able to live with it
@9TSWS3P10mos10MO
Undecided I feel it would be difficult because i am too used to the amenities of a house.
@9TSX5HR10mos10MO
I would not, because conditions there might not be the most hygienic.
@ISIDEWITH10mos10MO
How do you feel about converting historic or abandoned buildings into high-density housing, and do you think it preserves or erases history?
@9YFMWMP8mos8MO
I think converting historic or abandoned buildings into high-density housing can be a meaningful way to preserve history while addressing modern housing needs, as it often revitalizes architectural heritage and brings new life to old structures. Adaptive reuse can maintain the original character and aesthetic of historic buildings, blending past and present, although some worry it may erase history if too many changes are made, stripping the building of its original purpose and meaning. Ultimately, careful design that respects a building’s heritage can create a balance, providing functional housing while keeping a connection to the past.
@9TM47P410mos10MO
I think that we should leave the historic buildings as they are and prevent them from being renovated or torn down, abandoned buildings could be turned into high density residential buildings but, it would cost way too much money to renovate the entire building and get all the the utilities and supplies you need to survive would not be worth it.
I don't think CS takes into account the fact that high-density residential buildings fill up slower than low-density.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 1yr1Y
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
@9LKMVGD1yr1Y
i think that certain areas should provide certain high density residential areas but not everywhere because of how expensive certain land is.
@9TYB7LM10mos10MO
Yes, but the way they should do this is to reduce the regulatory burden on builders. There should be no subsidization, only deregulation.
@9TX7HZZ10mos10MO
Yes, because these buildings make economic sense to build, while single-family home subdivisions do not.
Yes, but it should be in areas that have a demand for it. New development should not be prioritized over legislation that utilizes the vacant homes and units that already exists.
@9TNCMG710mos10MO
Yes, and zoning laws should be adjusted so as to keep safety aspects but allow greater access to a greater variety of businesses and services.
@B62YYMP2 days2D
Yes, it should through deregulation, not through subsidies since there is already an economic incentive
Local governments should allow affordable housing to be built and public options should be more accessible
Yes, as long as the high density housing is affordable for low income individuals to help housing issues.
They should, but they also should put in heavy standards to ensure that the residential buildings don't sink in quality and-most importantly- safety. My point is, despite agreeing, the government (albeight national, state, or local) should heavily enforce standards and regulations, but should allow it. Plus, they should make sure that not too many buildings are made, as well as unfair prices are made for said residential housing.
@B62N6FC5 days5D
The community should. I don't believe in the government or corporations abilities to do anything positive.
@B62J79N5 days5D
Yes, but first turn all residential complexes that are private property into personal property with a sole proprietor, elected by the residents and workers of the building.
@B62HPJPWomen’s Equality6 days6D
I believe it depends. There should be a way to control the population that's given the opportunity. Meaning, if they're willing to meet certain requirements. There has to be a way to make sure the government fully involves itself, meaning that they make sure their part of the bargain is met as well as the community. Those allowed to live in these buildings continue to contribute and follow the requirements given.
I accept utilizing empty structures to create low income accommodations, but I do not condone building low-income apartments in suburban neighborhoods, where property values would be affected and also increase our taxes at the same time
@B62CLM96 days6D
Either way, mortgage pricing has gone up and needs to come down drastically for people with dire needs
Yes, but we should also work to ensure that overcrowding does not happen and that the people in these living situations are living in good conditions.
@B623DBG1wk1W
The problem isn’t housing. It’s pricing. They need to make homes more available to the middle and lower class. Apartments are not for living. Town homes and split homes are fine though.
@B622PWW1wk1W
Yes, and introduce legislation to ensure that housing is affordable across various incomes (mixed-income housing)
@B622KX2Libertarian1wk1W
Yes, the government should incentivize high-density residential construction—especially near transit lines and job centers.
However, policies must include affordability requirements, tenant protections, and infrastructure planning to ensure equitable outcomes.
@B5ZY7WL 1wk1W
It should not be incentivized by the government but regulations regarding building development should be cut
@B5ZTHPWProgressive1wk1W
Yes, as long as it is used as a cheaper alternative to owning a home, not to replace home ownership as a whole.
@B5ZL23YIndependent 1wk1W
Yes, but only in residential areas that can benefit from having said property in proximity. Such as the East Side Promise; High-density projects, when planned intentionally, can revitalize communities, support local businesses, and increase affordability without causing displacement.
I think there needs to be balance on making sure residents aren’t being affected in terms of green space, roads (driving), water, etc
@B5ZCSF8Progressive2wks2W
Yes, but only in cities and municipalities that agree, and would help expedite and plan those buildings and surrounding infrastructure.
@B5ZB47HProgressive2wks2W
We should increase AFFORDABLE housing but not at the expense of creating essentially tenement housing. Yes, high density will create more housing but it can also lead to squallar in the housing.
We need more housing, especially affordable options, and high-density can help. But it has to be planned right, with good infrastructure, safety, and community input.
@B5Z8T9GIndependent 2wks2W
Yes more apartment complexes are needed, but also made single family dwellings more accessible to all.
@B5Z8SMNIndependent2wks2W
Yes, but not through public housing, rather by making zoning laws more flexible and more prone to dense constructions
Deleted2wks2W
YES... if bound by conditions of affordability, livability, equity, ecological stewardship, and integrated planning... Conditional, performance-based, transparently governed incentives, advance housing justice, sustainability, and generational dignity.
Government controlled apartments in high density areas and subsidize construction of low cost starter homes in suburban areas. This will lower housing costs for rentals and first time home buyers.
@B5Z396R2wks2W
Yes, only for the purpose of housing the willing homeless. The buildings should be removed from high population areas.
@B5YZ96MProgressive2wks2W
Yes—with thoughtful planning and community input, incentivizing high-density housing can tackle affordability, sustainability, and smart growth.
@B5YVWJVIndependent2wks2W
Only in urban areas that have a high density population and not rural areas spread out across America.
@B5YRJC9Independent2wks2W
I think it's a bit of both, would have to research way more to fully make a decision, however I think somewhat incentive can be good or bad under some circumstances
Yes, with the requirement that rent or buying the apartment can be afforded by the median wage of the area.
@B5YF94HIndependent2wks2W
No, corporations should adopt more work from home to open up corporate building to convert to residential
@B5Y5BRH3wks3W
Yes, make sure they’re affordable, walkable, mixed-use, decently decorated, connected to public transport, and minimize car usage within the area
@B5Y4QWGLibertarian3wks3W
The government should not offer subsidies or interfere with the free market in any way. The only way the governement cand incetivize the construction of high density residential buildings in a natural manner is not doing anything at all.
@B5Y4F3ZRepublican3wks3W
I think there should be affordable housing available for struggling individuals and families that are trying to get back on their feet. The barriers of entry to be becoming a homeowner or to rent a realistic apartment are so far out of reach for most people that are down and out, and I do think there should be government support with strict regulations and monitoring, but I do not think that we should shift our focus to government funded housing for the majority of the population because of the dependency that creates on the government, on our infrastructure, on our Medicare, on our tax dollars, and there’s a saying, if you feed the bears, the bears will no longer hunt for their food. But I do see that there’s a benefit and a need for affordable housing, but I think we tightened up on who qualifies for those spots.
@B5XVJR43wks3W
I think the incentivization should be directed at high quality, affordable, and safe high density which is easily maintained by the residence with readily available high quality materials materials and knowledge. Ergonomic, disabled accepting, humanist designs should always be planned and constructed into the buildings in every level. The building should be constructed with ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete that should withstand any local natural disaster and each residence should be equipped with the best HEPA systems and UV lights in reachable vents to keep the air clean from any airborne pathogens and etc. Each residence should be able to have access to heating equipment that they have the right to repair with the aforementioned readily available high quality materials materials and knowledge.
@B5XR5P53wks3W
No this will only lead to more openings of housing projects, which are counterproductive to lifting people out of poverty.
@B5X29HV3wks3W
Regardless, it should be state funded. There's only so much federal funds that can be sent to each state for construction. (Infrastructure Bill)
@B5TM5K41mo1MO
I support public housing but personally don’t like dense apartments. Would rather not but this would be better than homelessness.
@B5TJ2881mo1MO
Regardless, we should get rid of all means of construction and human structure to restore ancient ecosystems again to allow for maximum environmental protection
@B5SX5MF1mo1MO
Yes, but only in areas with severe housing shortages or rising rent prices. I support solutions that help families afford safe and stable housing without removing the opportunity for homeownership.
@B5SJGLT1mo1MO
It depends on the city. What the city needs or wants for its population's housing should determine whether or not the government should incentivize the construction of high-density residential buildings..
@B5S4Z7X1mo1MO
Not necessarily. It should continue to make housing availability an option for those who need additional resources.
@B5PHZ6S1mo1MO
not in areas with already developed housing take the areas out west with way less population and way more space
I think if there was more regualtion and investigation to make sure everything was up to code, then yes. But that's not where we are so it's sort of a no.
@B5N9QCC2mos2MO
yes if the housing in those residential buildings is meant to help house those who are struggling and cannot afford other housing
No, the government should be more focused on the unoccupied homes in the current market and making them affordable
@AAbattery444Progressive 2mos2MO
Yes, the government should incentivize high-density housing, but only when these incentives are tied to ensuring humane conditions, high living standards, and that the housing contributes to affordability and fairness rather than excessive profiteering
No, but incentivize the construction of “missing middle” middle density residential buildings (multiplex houses, small apartment buildings, and small courtyard apartments)
@B5H36PJ2mos2MO
some but continue to build nice single family homes because the goal and desire is a home not a high density residential building
@B5GD2SD2mos2MO
To prevent the loss of green spaces and nature in already urbanized areas, cities and governments should take the time to reconstruct and reform already existing buildings and parking lots/built land into more affordable, semi-dense housing.
@B5DJP8Q2mos2MO
Yes. Once again, I'd like i better of this was done by workers in the community rather than a centralized state apparatus.
@B55WGPB3mos3MO
Yes, but the housing market of the residential buildings must be regulated according to the median annual income of the state.
@B54GC7Z3mos3MO
no but they could do it slower because if we move to fast there could just be city everywhere and I feel like that would be hell.
@B4ZG5WQ3mos3MO
In major cities maybe, but living in a state where most of our land is open field, it just feels pointless to have high density housing.
@B4YYKSL3mos3MO
this would be nice but the issue is in the current climate this would incentivise immoral companies to use government funding to build dangerous housing that would cause poor living conditions
@B4RTFSC3mos3MO
Yes, but allow the government to work with state and city law makers to regulate how many buildings are being refitted.
@B4Q7JFW3mos3MO
yes but only in places where its necessary. the gov should subsidize the building of multifamily homes
@B4M9YWS3mos3MO
if there is a housing desert yes but if there is areas able to be developed into good middle class neighborhoods no.
@B4KLCSB3mos3MO
only of the city votes to increase high density housing however if a city wants to keep single family home neighborhoods then its the right of the city and its inhabitants to choose so
@B4GL4ZH 3mos3MO
Yes, but make the buildings environmentally friendly too in ways where birds wont accidentally hit them and die.
No due to further construction of buildings increases global warming. Provide programs and bring down the cost of living and inflation. ALL rentals should be determined by size of family and should not exceed space required per person and rent cost should be determined by household income and should not exceed 27% of household income.
@B4FCJW4Republican3mos3MO
No, for the sake of a broad supply of housing, weak government, capitalism, low taxes, and low national debt.
@B4D6KHP4mos4MO
No, for the sake of federalism, capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, low taxes, and a low national debt.
@B4CDDPB4mos4MO
In areas that are growing in population quickly and before selling public trusted land for development.
@B4C6FCD4mos4MO
No, convert offices that have been more or less empty ever since the COVID-19 pandemic into housing/apartments and put more support into remote-work when possible. Then, if we need more still, we can consider building more.
@B49CVXT4mos4MO
I think it could help with lowering homelessness but if the rent is crazy like they are in New York maybe not.
@B484DKC4mos4MO
Yes, but only in population dense urban areas with a housing shortage or out of control rent prices.
@B46DH7C4mos4MO
The government should attempt to propagate more suburbs to strengthen the housing market for the middle class.
@B45VN8R4mos4MO
Yes, but it should also incentivize other forms of residential construction, including low- and medium-rise infill housing
@B3ZYM5D4mos4MO
No, this will hurt the Real Estate Industry, Housing Market, and raise interest rates. Also, this is a subversion towards capitalism, checks and balances, weak government, and federalism. This also as we know it blow up the national debt and raise taxes.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
