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.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
Yes
@9LJQLXW3mos3MO
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.
@9LNTJNM3mos3MO
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.
@9LNMYX73mos3MO
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.
@9LNCPD9Republican3mos3MO
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.
@9LTDTR83mos3MO
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 3mos3MO
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.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 3mos3MO
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
@9LW3ZGY3mos3MO
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
@9LKMVGD3mos3MO
i think that certain areas should provide certain high density residential areas but not everywhere because of how expensive certain land is.
@7YS3KJPIndependent 5 days5D
Yes, but only after rent is reduced & I feel there are better things for the government to focus their efforts on first, such as implementing a land value tax, taking steps to tighten cost and time efficiencies for residential projects, and other changes.
@9R777946 days6D
Only in highly populated areas where housing is scarce or more expensive than the average income of the area
No. This tends to lead to slums and inhumane living conditions. There’s a better way to care for the vulnerable than this.
@9R4LJN91wk1W
As long as it's actually a good place to live and not left to be built by the lowest bidder and made with the least amount of individual space in order to accommodate the most amount of tenants.
@CheoTrawfordIndependent 1wk1W
Yes, contingent upon completion of traffic and infrastructure studies demonstrating that the area can support the new construction.
@jadenstr11wk1W
This is dystopian, the world is overpopulated. It's almost better to let people die off than to keep creating this concrete hell.
@9QZJKSH2wks2W
Only as a last resort. High density apartment buildings aren't suitable for living. People deserve to live in private dwellings with a sizable yard but we should fund this is it really is a cheaper way to give more people a home.
@9M92HLY3mos3MO
Only in large cities, or cities that have a lot of homeless people. They should focus onthe construction of shelter .
@9M8WH973mos3MO
Only if you are allocating affordable options for families and not tearing down families homes for less than homes are worth
@Golf-Z 3mos3MO
On a limited basis, where natural market forces are not working to accommodate the housing needs of the community.
@9M88BR33mos3MO
High density residential buildings should only be considered if they can provide proper psychological and hygienic health standards. It would aid with reducing human expansion into the natural environment and provide more efficient and minimalist living standards.
@9M889FQ3mos3MO
It depends on the state or city because we already have a lot of states that have a high density or population and others that have little to no citizens at all
@9M7ZNG53mos3MO
Yes, the government should incentivize the construction of high density residential buildings, and keep the prices reasonable.
@9M7HHLP 3mos3MO
No, the locations need the ability to sustain the high density residential buildings with infrastructure needs.
@9M7KHQT3mos3MO
We need more housing especially in these times. There is an overpopulation and immigration issue. We need places to stay.
@9M783MM3mos3MO
I don't really have an opinion on this, but I would like it if the government kept housing environmentally healthy.
@9M77Z623mos3MO
there are many uninhabited buildings sitting around doing nothing. i believe that the government should prioritise using these buildings for residents, lowering rent as well to make living more accessible
@9M74LH33mos3MO
As the population grows, more houses need to be built. However, many high density destroys the environment.
@9M6X8RG3mos3MO
No, we have a lot of underutilized and overpriced housing already. Implement controls on housing costs and incentivize population diversity to drive economic growth in rural areas.
@9M6PL9H 3mos3MO
Yes, but there should also be good public schools, health clinics, parks, community centers, addiction centers & affordable grocery & other stores/services required to live a balanced, healthy life. Having lower cost housing by having these residential buildings can bring more crime, so id like to combat that
@9M644TS3mos3MO
Not directly, but residential zoning laws should be deregulated, allowing for freer choice of property usage.
@9M5Q2TD3mos3MO
Yes, but don't take away available land. take areas that are run down like warehouses or create tiny home options in a community area.
@9M5LXFR3mos3MO
Yes, but not in an area where the locals believe the above mentioned "character" of their neighborhoods will be harmed.
@9M55CG4 3mos3MO
Yes and no if a landowner does not want to sell out the government should not have the right to claim eminent domain.
@9M4SWCQ3mos3MO
Yes, if there are strict guidelines ensuring that the buildings will be safe for everyone to live in
@9M3XVV93mos3MO
Yes, and make sure rent is kept in a reasonable and affordable range as to not further push the concern of possible homelessness that many face
@9M2SG233mos3MO
I think the government should encourage lowering the birth rate. We're full to bursting on this planet. And we don't have a plane B.
@9M2HQBSLibertarian3mos3MO
I think the government should incentivize people to move out to more rural areas to spread the population out. Which, would provide more funding and education opportunities for people in that area.
@9M2FKHW3mos3MO
Yes, and the government should be able to use the concept of eminent domain if met with remarkable resistance.
@9M2F6J93mos3MO
Yes, but make sure that they are well built and environmentally friendly in order to reduce their environmental impact. This decreases the population that is homeless.
@9M22HM63mos3MO
Yes, only if the proposed housing is affordable for the residents who currently live in the area at the time the project is approved
@9LZW3863mos3MO
Yes, if public transportation/roads are expanded to handle the increased amount of people living in the area prior to residents moving in.
@9LZK2TN3mos3MO
yes to a certain extent. its ok to add some new housing to high density areas but adding to much will bring in more people and then it will start getting over crowded.
@9LNSH6R3mos3MO
The government should focus on high density population in an appropriate manner that won't destroy the environment.
@9LNQ3VK3mos3MO
Yes, and incentivize rehabilitation of existing housing stock and subsidize down payments for low income buyers
@9LNB93W3mos3MO
High density residential buildings are good for certain areas, but bringing them into the centers of suburban towns creates problems with many people coming in and out of a specific area, hurting the flow of traffic.
@9LN9HLLRepublican3mos3MO
Yes, because we should try to minimize homelessness and it would help people find a better suited home for their individual circumstances.
@9LN72RM3mos3MO
If its reusing a currently inactive building then it has benefits but high density isnt always needed in certain situations due to the access of land
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
