Try the political quiz

315 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...1mo1MO


 @9LNTJNM from California disagreed…4wks4W

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.

 @9LNMYX7 from Idaho disagreed…4wks4W

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.

 @9LNCPD9Republican from Texas disagreed…4wks4W

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.

 @9LJQLXW from Texas agreed…1mo1MO

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.

 @9LTDTR8 from Michigan answered…3wks3W

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  from Missouri answered…2wks2W

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

 @4C9DYX2Green commented…2 days2D

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.

 @9LW3ZGYfrom Maine answered…3wks3W

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

 @9LKMVGD from Utah answered…1mo1MO

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

 @9MFX68G from Texas answered…5 days5D

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

 @ScoopesoDemocrat  from Florida answered…5 days5D

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.

 @9MFTGL8 from Washington answered…5 days5D

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

 @9MFR96M from Oklahoma answered…5 days5D

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.

 @9MFQTKB from Maryland answered…5 days5D

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

 @9MFFSN3 from Arkansas answered…6 days6D

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

 @9MFDFFHPeace and Freedom from Michigan answered…6 days6D

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.

 @9MDSHTM from Missouri answered…6 days6D

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.

 @9MDB2N5Independent from California answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MD3WJW from New York answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MCQ6NX from Illinois answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MCHM9ZLibertarian from Georgia answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MCGZFPWomen’s Equality from New Jersey answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MCG4DS from California answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MCG3WR from Texas answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MCF2C3Democrat from North Carolina answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MBXCGQ from Pennsylvania answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MBWDZ8 from West Virginia answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MBRCJRRepublican from Texas answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MBR3ZV from Louisiana answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MBQCT7 from Texas answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MBPZJXIndependent from Texas answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MBPHY6 from Louisiana answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MBBM3HGreen from Pennsylvania answered…1wk1W

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

 @9MB7CRLDemocrat from Texas answered…1wk1W

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

 @2YWMS7X answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9MB2MTP from Indiana answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9M9XZTW from Virginia answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9M9V2MD from New York answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9M9MQTTIndependent from New Mexico answered…1wk1W

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.

 @9M9GPC9 from Wisconsin answered…2wks2W

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

 @9M9FTMYRepublican from Texas answered…2wks2W

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

 @9M9FC4RDemocrat from Texas answered…2wks2W

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

 @9M98C6YLibertarian from Pennsylvania answered…2wks2W

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

 @9M97QGL from Pennsylvania answered…2wks2W

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.

 @9M92HLY from North Carolina answered…2wks2W

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

 @9M8WH97 from North Carolina answered…2wks2W

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

 @9M8T7X3 from Illinois answered…2wks2W

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.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...