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.
@9MCHM9ZLibertarian12mos12MO
The government should neither subsidize nor discourage the construction of high density residential, this should be up to the market.
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
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.
@9S2PG439mos9MO
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.
@B2FS9HS4mos4MO
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.
@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
@9TX83LT8mos8MO
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.
@9TYJFHK8mos8MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
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 Equality8mos8MO
Yes, with more amenities, I would be able to live with it
@9TSWS3P8mos8MO
Undecided I feel it would be difficult because i am too used to the amenities of a house.
@9TSX5HR8mos8MO
I would not, because conditions there might not be the most hygienic.
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
How do you feel about converting historic or abandoned buildings into high-density housing, and do you think it preserves or erases history?
@9YFMWMP6mos6MO
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.
@9TM47P48mos8MO
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.
@9TYB7LM8mos8MO
Yes, but the way they should do this is to reduce the regulatory burden on builders. There should be no subsidization, only deregulation.
@9TX7HZZ8mos8MO
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.
@9TNCMG78mos8MO
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.
@B55WGPB1wk1W
Yes, but the housing market of the residential buildings must be regulated according to the median annual income of the state.
@B54GC7Z1wk1W
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.
@B4ZG5WQ2wks2W
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.
@B4YYKSL2wks2W
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
@B4RTFSC3wks3W
Yes, but allow the government to work with state and city law makers to regulate how many buildings are being refitted.
@B4Q7JFW3wks3W
yes but only in places where its necessary. the gov should subsidize the building of multifamily homes
@B4M9YWS4wks4W
if there is a housing desert yes but if there is areas able to be developed into good middle class neighborhoods no.
@B4KLCSB1mo1MO
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 1mo1MO
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.
@B4FCJW4Republican1mo1MO
No, for the sake of a broad supply of housing, weak government, capitalism, low taxes, and low national debt.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
No, for the sake of federalism, capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, low taxes, and a low national debt.
@B4CDDPB1mo1MO
In areas that are growing in population quickly and before selling public trusted land for development.
@B4C6FCD1mo1MO
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.
@B49CVXT1mo1MO
I think it could help with lowering homelessness but if the rent is crazy like they are in New York maybe not.
@B484DKC1mo1MO
Yes, but only in population dense urban areas with a housing shortage or out of control rent prices.
@B46DH7C2mos2MO
The government should attempt to propagate more suburbs to strengthen the housing market for the middle class.
@B45VN8R2mos2MO
Yes, but it should also incentivize other forms of residential construction, including low- and medium-rise infill housing
@B3ZYM5D2mos2MO
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.
@B3ZX2P22mos2MO
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.
@B3WM78W2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
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.
@B3RLSSYLibertarian2mos2MO
No, high density developments and buildings have historically become ghettos and breeding grounds for crime, drugs and gangs.
@7WDP6PTIndependent 2mos2MO
Yes, but we need to incentify fair housing prices and rent caping unfair prices for renting these properties
@9L4Z23BIndependent 2mos2MO
The federal government should provide research to states and local governments showing how high density buildings can reduce rents and housing prices, but ultimately this should be left to local zoning boards
@ThunderRoseIndependent 2mos2MO
Yes, and height limits should be either increased or removed to house more civilians. Also, those high-density residential buildings should be low-cost to incentivize denser living.
@B3N5FGDLibertarian2mos2MO
Yes, but Depends on whether the high-density residential community is walkable with stores and businesses.
@B3K5K88Progressive2mos2MO
it depends on the current population of the area and how affordable the housing would be in comparison to other structures.
@B3G8W2R2mos2MO
Yes and No. Not everyone wants to live in high density apartments. Include incentives for single family detached homes, and town houses.
@B3FBF5SProgressive 2mos2MO
Yes, provided that the buildings also include parking, basic shops, entertainment, easy access to transit and green areas.
@B3DVFJ9 2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
No, they should increase regulation of so-called "luxury" housing so that property owners don't find easy workarounds to avoid providing affordable housing.
@B3B33VY2mos2MO
Promote ruralized housing but give incentive for high density housing to support those in need of it.
@B35C8WL3mos3MO
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
@B2ZNDHC3mos3MO
Yes, but the buildings should be required to have higher levels of efficiency than other buildings around it.
@B2WF7LYLibertarian3mos3MO
Residential communities not just buildings, the community should be able to negotiate prices on goods and outside services as a group for lower costs
@B2SHHWC3mos3MO
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.
@B2PMTB43mos3MO
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.
@B2ND6HB3mos3MO
Yes, building up uses less land and destroys less nature. It also is more walkable instead of using cars that cause pollution
@B2M8CKJ3mos3MO
No, let the free market and supply and demand largely determine this. Decrease zoning laws to foster innovation but do not eliminate them completely.
@B2J5MDP4mos4MO
High density residential buildings should be incentivized in order to be used to aid in the housing crisis, along with helping the homeless.
@B2HZ5KQ4mos4MO
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 4mos4MO
No, overcrowding and rising urbanization will lead to higher crime rates and worse living conditions
@B2DLLX54mos4MO
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.
@B2CWBMJ4mos4MO
Yes, as long as it doesn't make it harder to buy a regular house or mean increased damage to forests and green spaces
@B29GMQH4mos4MO
Yes, by deregulating zoning laws. However, no subsidies or tax credits for devleopers should be involved.
@B24TMD55mos5MO
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.
@B23LN2GRepublican5mos5MO
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 5mos5MO
Yes, but only if this has local populous support and mandate, and only if the infrastructure of the locality is developed first
Deleted6mos6MO
Yes, incentivize the construction of both high-density residential buildings and single-family residential buildings
@9ZP466D6mos6MO
Yes, but primary focus should be on renovating old buildings into new, livable habitats, not throwing up low-quality residences
@9ZL2JH46mos6MO
There should be expansion into other areas to provide sufficient living space and create a place for good health
@9ZJD2JF6mos6MO
This should be handled by the state and local government rather than a mandate from the federal government.
@9ZGX6P56mos6MO
Not by funding but by lowering the taxes and giving deductions for building homes in America, using US resources and Labor by a United States company
@9ZGDFDY6mos6MO
Yes, but set limits on just how "small" residences are allowed to be to restrict overpriced, cramped housing.
@9ZG3HM9 6mos6MO
The government should incentivize middle density such as duplexes/triplexes/etc., not apartment blocks nor single family zoning.
@9ZFM3W36mos6MO
Yes, government should provide for the construction of residential buildings, but also having it at a high density may not be optimal or safe.
@9ZDST776mos6MO
Yes, if they are actually affordable to rent from, and only after refurbishing empty malls, warehouses and other buildings to serve this purpose. If there is still a need, make new ones.
@9ZCLN7K6mos6MO
Yes, and make it legal to build duplexes, and fourplexes where single-family homes are, and mandate municipalities use urban growth boundaries to conserve farmland and limit urban sprawl.
@9ZBLV9R 6mos6MO
No, but build mixed income and mixed use developments to increase density in existing population centers.
@9YN7FP86mos6MO
Yes, but only in certain instances where high density buildings can be accommodated by infrastructure such as roads/parking/etc.
@9YN43FV6mos6MO
The government never seems to incentivize anything except their cronies getting rich. I cannot think of a single government problem that made a situation better.
@9YHLXH26mos6MO
Yes, but high density residential buildings should be a supplement to our currently existing surplus of available but unused housing
@9YHDZ8L6mos6MO
There should be a regulated allotment so people aren't piled on top of eachother while others are basking in more space than they realistically use
@9YFYQVW6mos6MO
Yes and No because there is a lot of them but it gets to a point where there is to much and it is itching closer to a No and when it gets to that point there should be less of them
@9YCFKHC6mos6MO
Yes, but a new zoning should be created for this specific use and must by voted on by 2/3rd majority of the area it is directly impacting.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
