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.
@9MCHM9ZLibertarian1yr1Y
The government should neither subsidize nor discourage the construction of high density residential, this should be up to the market.
@9TYJFHK9mos9MO
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
@9M7ZNG51yr1Y
Yes, the government should incentivize the construction of high density residential buildings, and keep the prices reasonable.
@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
@9TX83LT9mos9MO
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.
@9TYJFHK9mos9MO
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.
@9TYB7LM9mos9MO
Yes, but the way they should do this is to reduce the regulatory burden on builders. There should be no subsidization, only deregulation.
@9TX7HZZ9mos9MO
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.
@B5YF94HIndependent2 days2D
No, corporations should adopt more work from home to open up corporate building to convert to residential
@B5Y5BRH3 days3D
Yes, make sure they’re affordable, walkable, mixed-use, decently decorated, connected to public transport, and minimize car usage within the area
@B5Y4QWGLibertarian3 days3D
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.
@B5Y4F3ZRepublican3 days3D
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.
@B5XVJR45 days5D
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.
@B5XR5P55 days5D
No this will only lead to more openings of housing projects, which are counterproductive to lifting people out of poverty.
@B5X29HV1wk1W
Regardless, it should be state funded. There's only so much federal funds that can be sent to each state for construction. (Infrastructure Bill)
@B5TM5K42wks2W
I support public housing but personally don’t like dense apartments. Would rather not but this would be better than homelessness.
@B5TJ2883wks3W
Regardless, we should get rid of all means of construction and human structure to restore ancient ecosystems again to allow for maximum environmental protection
@B5SX5MF3wks3W
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.
@B5SJGLT3wks3W
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..
@B5S4Z7X3wks3W
Not necessarily. It should continue to make housing availability an option for those who need additional resources.
@B5PHZ6S4wks4W
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.
@B5N9QCC1mo1MO
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.
@B55WGPB2mos2MO
Yes, but the housing market of the residential buildings must be regulated according to the median annual income of the state.
@B54GC7Z2mos2MO
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.
@B4ZG5WQ2mos2MO
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.
@B4YYKSL2mos2MO
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
@B4RTFSC2mos2MO
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.
@B4D6KHP3mos3MO
No, for the sake of federalism, capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, low taxes, and a low national debt.
@B4CDDPB3mos3MO
In areas that are growing in population quickly and before selling public trusted land for development.
@B4C6FCD3mos3MO
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.
@B49CVXT3mos3MO
I think it could help with lowering homelessness but if the rent is crazy like they are in New York maybe not.
@B484DKC3mos3MO
Yes, but only in population dense urban areas with a housing shortage or out of control rent prices.
@B46DH7C3mos3MO
The government should attempt to propagate more suburbs to strengthen the housing market for the middle class.
@B45VN8R3mos3MO
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.
@B3ZX2P24mos4MO
No, but increase the amount of high density residential buildings in new housing projects so as to reduce the amount of space that is needed and reduce the amount of deforestation.
@B3WM78W4mos4MO
it depends on where they're trying to build the building. if there's not alot of space and alot of people (for example in a city), it works really well. But outside of that it doesn't work well.
@B3VGV2T 4mos4MO
Yes, government incentives for high-density residential buildings can be beneficial, particularly in addressing housing affordability and promoting sustainable urban development, but they must be carefully designed and implemented to avoid unintended consequences.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Arguments for Incentivizing High-Density Housing:
Increased Housing Supply and Affordability:
Higher-density housing can lead to more units being built on the same land, potentially increasing housing supply and making housing more affordable, especially in areas with limited land and high con… Read more
Yes but with nice infrastructure and greens spaces so quality doesn't go down. We can't all afford a house with a yard.
@B3K5K88Progressive4mos4MO
it depends on the current population of the area and how affordable the housing would be in comparison to other structures.
@B3G8W2R4mos4MO
Yes and No. Not everyone wants to live in high density apartments. Include incentives for single family detached homes, and town houses.
@B3FBF5SProgressive 4mos4MO
Yes, provided that the buildings also include parking, basic shops, entertainment, easy access to transit and green areas.
@B3DVFJ9 4mos4MO
Instead of new construction, I'd like to see older buildings repurposed to high population residential first, possibly with community gardens and daycare to help low income families
@78KV2FR 4mos4MO
No, they should increase regulation of so-called "luxury" housing so that property owners don't find easy workarounds to avoid providing affordable housing.
@B3B33VY4mos4MO
Promote ruralized housing but give incentive for high density housing to support those in need of it.
@B35C8WL4mos4MO
Should new Zealand labour party leader could eye on the surprised and results for an residental buildings and rehabilitation supports issued by Ireland prime minister finished off housing and supports
@B2ZNDHC5mos5MO
Yes, but the buildings should be required to have higher levels of efficiency than other buildings around it.
@B2WF7LYLibertarian5mos5MO
Residential communities not just buildings, the community should be able to negotiate prices on goods and outside services as a group for lower costs
@B2SHHWC5mos5MO
Yes, but ensure a strict quality of living to avoid inner city slums. Furthermore, large vertical exterior walls make perfect canvasses for green walls that can improve downtown air-quality and morale.
@B2PMTB45mos5MO
In areas with limited land to develop, yes. Sometimes high density is the only option. The govt should incentivize all types of income based construction in every area no matter the type of construction.
@B2ND6HB5mos5MO
Yes, building up uses less land and destroys less nature. It also is more walkable instead of using cars that cause pollution
@B2M8CKJ5mos5MO
No, let the free market and supply and demand largely determine this. Decrease zoning laws to foster innovation but do not eliminate them completely.
@B2J5MDP5mos5MO
High density residential buildings should be incentivized in order to be used to aid in the housing crisis, along with helping the homeless.
@B2HZ5KQ5mos5MO
Yes, provided that high density residential buildings follow federal guidelines and regulations to ensure that these types of homes are structurally sound and can endure the elements.
@B2GJF6N 6mos6MO
No, overcrowding and rising urbanization will lead to higher crime rates and worse living conditions
@B2DLLX56mos6MO
Yes, but only if people can own property within them (ie: owning an apartment not just renting one).
No, they should focus on fixing the issue of private companies buying up available housing and either renting it or selling it for a higher price.
@B2CWBMJ6mos6MO
Yes, as long as it doesn't make it harder to buy a regular house or mean increased damage to forests and green spaces
@B29GMQH6mos6MO
Yes, by deregulating zoning laws. However, no subsidies or tax credits for devleopers should be involved.
@B24TMD57mos7MO
It should incentivize better urban planning in order to prevent suburbs from happening again, while also avoiding the abhorrent brutalism of eastern Soviet apartment buildings. The best way is to have a medium density, depending on the area.
@B23LN2GRepublican7mos7MO
we wouldn't have to build so many new homes if there was so many illegal people in the United States.
Yes, but provide cultural centers, protect green areas and all natural, and make all aspects of living are accessible to disabled people.
@9T6SV77American Solidarity 7mos7MO
Yes, but only if this has local populous support and mandate, and only if the infrastructure of the locality is developed first
Deleted7mos7MO
Yes, incentivize the construction of both high-density residential buildings and single-family residential buildings
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
