Should new housing developments be required to include green spaces and parks?

No

No, it should not be required but the developers should be given some sort of compensation in the form of money or tax breaks from the city to include green spaces and parks

I think housing developments should not be required to have green spaces but the inclusion of them should be incentivized

Should they have these things? Yes but should they be required? No. They can build however they like

No, deregulate property development and reduce the scope of zoning laws so that developers and local governments can provide these amenities as they are demanded by the consumer.

It should not be required, but it is important. It should be required that the government have these spaces if they are the ones making the developments or parks.

YES. There is too much concrete and pavement. The country is growing hotter due to this and the country is also becoming very grey.

It depends on who lives in the neighborhood. If it is mainly elders there is no need for parks but if it’s relatively younger people or families than I would think parks and green spaces would be a good option.

New housing developments should not be required to include green spaces and or parks do to if theirs not enough space for the parks like condos and theirs also parks around.

Depends on the climate of the area and such. You don't want to waste water, and everyone needs it. So, if the green spaces are conservative in water usage, and don't take up more resources, sure. But, if it does take up more resources, maybe not. Idk... Sounds nice, could be sus though. So, IDK.

Yes if it's government housing, but private housing developments should only be required to pass strict environmental impact regulations.

Yes, and restrict the development of green spaces into luxury housing developments on the local level.

No, but urban areas should be required to have a certain level of greenery for hydrologcal, geological, and social benefits.

Don't outsource green spaces and parks to developers who use this to reduce their impact fees. Make cities and counties responsible for public parks and allow public input from the communities. Municipalities outsource their responsibilities and costs to developers and HOAs without public support, while still benefiting from collecting property taxes.

Yes, but not at the expense of other existing properties. (ie bulldozing trees to make a flat field of green space)

Yes, but, depends on the geography of the location. This would not be possible in a high-rise building in town but very manageable in a rural area.

Yes, but only if there isn't already one within 1 mile, but especially if it is an apartment complex.

Yes and no because you don't pay for the park they chose but at the same time they would have more people buy apartments.

No, this is an anathema towards freedom, federalism, capitalism, checks and balances, and weak government. This will also raise interest rates.

Yes, housing developments should be required to include green spaces and parks because it will improve people's health and they are more likely to spend time outside.

Yes, because we need to at least help out the homeless people who get cold during the winter and almost freeze to death just by walking back and forth to the grocery store. Because sometimes people end up homeless by getting fired from jobs and losing time to pay their money for the banks.

No, this is an assault on freedom, capitalism, checks and balances, federalism, and weak government.

No, but those that do have them will be given less property taxes. any other forms of property will not be taxed if they are near the land that has these green spaces.

Yes, if the environment is a issue, then any means of reducing carbon emission by adding carbon dioxide eating beings is good.

Not required but it should be common place and encouraged. And if those who care about it are willing to lay higher prices for it, and those who dont buy for cheaper priced houses due to the lack of parks are also ok with that, than I believe no harm is done.

Yes, and local communities should be allowed to charge real estate developers impact fees to cover the cost of improving the schools, public safety services, and infrastructure affected by the increased population the new development will cause.

Building codes and statutes already have some arbitrary requirements, so I think this would fall in that category and can be instituted For that reason

That would depend on the area and should be discussed by both the federal, state and local governments.

No, but offer incentives to make them more attractive to developers. Many are already incentivized by the higher property values that come with such things.

Yes, but restrict the development of suburbs and sprawl. New developments should be serviced by public transport if near an urban center

Should uk labours prime minister awares for the creatives on parks and spaces in peace making by u.s president revolution in based and believe if ancessary

Yes because this facilitates and fosters community lead areas. If there is green spaces and parks people have the opportunity to become self-sustainable in that apartment complex community should the government ever fail in an emergency. Introducing people to grow crops, have livestock in these parks which can maintain the fields, have people volunteer to service these parks and green spaces which would save developers a ton of money, also college students and graduates and people in general who are studying can intern at these local community green spaces and do things such as treat the livestock, study economic effects. Lastly the argument that it will increase the cost of housing is absurd. Housing cost will increase no matter what and in fact housing should never be monotonized. This is a basic right to life.

Depends on the area but you never see someone being too happy with dirt surrounding their home versus greenery

Yes, but only if they have the space to do so. It shouldn't be required if the housing development doesn't have space.

Let residents decide on where they want community green spaces and what they want to a lot then for (nature reserve, community garden, etc)

Yes, but only public developers private developers decide the layout of their own projects and developments.

No, it should not be "required" per se; however, there should be federal incentives for it to be highly encouraged.

It depends on the location. In some high density urban areas there is not enough land to provide green spaces. The need to house outweighs the requirement to provide luxury accommodations. Designers should always try to consider adding quality of life elements in construction whenever possible, but it should not be a prerequisite.

Yes there should be more public sheltered places for homeless individuals although not built where homes and activities are so they dont scare people

Yes, End all H.O.A on house's within city limits. And all streets must have sidewalks and connection to other side street / Sidewalks in the city limits.

I have an idea, let's not ruin rural areas with development. Lets put money back into areas in cities that have been run down.

No, but encourage it through small incentives each month for developments with green spaces and parks.

yes, but they should include local plant life and not just be grass areas. There should also be a community garden space.

No, but we could incentivize housing developers to build green spaces and parks. I don't want consumers to face higher expenses.

No, doing so can limit the generation and supply of housing particularly in dry areas like Arizona and New Mexico

there is already ordinances in place for that. check your local building department, they can verify that.

there are public parks there shouldn't be spaces being removed as they can be for free parking or more bins to reduce climate change

The entire infrastructure system needs to be updated, this is only a extremely small part of an incredibly large issue attached to how american cities are built and maintained.

Yes, they should have at least one park, but not because of a climate change agenda, and no climate policy's

They should just keep natural spaces as that, and instead get people to buy and live in the hundreds of empty houses across the US

It depends, where they live at and f there will be other people around to use it. If you in the city there’s no need to add a park and green lands

yes but don't take so much green land away from the animals they need it for they can survive and we need them to play their part in the ecosystem for we can survive

NO, not required but incentivized since it is great for the community and requires lesser maintenance.

I feel as though there should be those green spaces and parks but at a low cost not too much charged for the middle and lower class.

Yes, and they should be required by every city or county they build into, to either add to or pay into the cities infrastructure. If they contribute to the population growth, they need to contribute to the infrastructure.

I believe that housing developments should make their own choices without the government making regulations and getting in their way.

Use the areas that are already developed and not being used. Leave the wooded areas alone so the animals have a place to live.

No, although it would be nice, people can pick somewhere with a green area if it's that important to them.

Why should they include parks-
if there is a bell in the park, with trees everywhere, the frequency of the environment itself will entirely prevent crime from happening, espically if there are water features in the park. This is very serious because frequency can instantly manipulate peoples emotions, put people in different states of mind, and we can use this to our advantage to have less crime instantaneously.

No, some people can't afford expensive housing and when you have green spaces it increases the price. It should be optional and if people would like green spaces they can go live somewhere with them.

they should stop building houses and developments. they cut the trees and ruin wildlife for people who want to move but should stay where they belong.

This really depends on the location. If the location you are at has no greenery and you would like something with parks o green spaces, then you should go find somewhere that accommodates that.

No, it should not be required but if they do do it there should be reasonable compensation for it such as a tax write off

No, it shouldn't be required but it should be encouraged. Informing Housing developers of the benefits of green spaces.

I think that it should be an option for the people or families that are going to move into the new housing developments.

No, housing developments should be incentivized to include green spaces but they should not be required.

It depends on the availability of a green space and park, which can be beneficial but, needs room and isn’t a main priority.

at some point, it shouldn't be required mainly due to the fact that there are some spaces where it is unavailable for green spaces and parks such as apartments in the city. however, infrastructures should invest on promoting sustainable energy, protecting the environment with measures that eradicate pollution.

Some yes and some no. Every house doesn't have to have green spaces. It can be a personal preference.

Neutral, having the ability to decide where you would like your place should be a right, and prices need to be fair in order to make those options available for every citizen.

i believe that a green space should be added at least once in a specific zone, but not specifically as every housing development.

Depending on the area you live in and if there are already surrounding fitness areas, then green spaces and parks in new housing developments should or should not be required

Depends on the area, In bustling urban areas it should be a requirement, but in more rural areas it should be less of a priority.

I think the people and developers should decide that on their own and collectively come to an agreement on that

It depends on the amount of land... It doesn't have to be a park but just in general having nature around you is a benefit to your health and the earth.

New housing developments shouldn't be required to include green spaces and parks unless the demographic they have for those houses is for families, larger groups of people, or are in an area known for their climate and varieties of nature in a pleasing way

No, But cities should be developed with that in mind as well as other ways of making the city livable for the people in them.

I don't necessarily thing that it needs to be required but I believe that people should work on adding new features like parks.

it shouldn't take park spaces because children love playing in it and green spaces are for animals and farming goods.

Houses should be big enough to have a yard instead of having to share property with the public for park

It depends, if the housing area does enough room for green space and parks then no, if the housing area does have enough space then yes.

It definitely would be beneficial but not everybody cares enough for it to be an actual requirement.

Yes, however, land is hard to come by so there needs to be realistic plans. We are luckily locally as there are many beautiful parks and greenspaces built into our landscape.

Yes, only if housing development is located in a city like area that does not have very many natural and green locations

Yes, but only in large metro areas such as Dallas or New York and it should be decided on a local level.

This is a difficult question because while green space is important, requiring it for new developments could increase the cost of new housing. Maybe have a "No, the local government should build parks instead." option.

I feel like if there are noticeably a lot of children in an area they should put green spaces and parks because children need to go outside rather than stay inside. It's close to home so the parents don't have to be worried about their children being far from home.

I think it depends on where the new houses are located. I'd rather have no green spaces and parks than artificial areas.

Yes but it doesn't need to be public, just enough to adjust for the amount of space that building is taking from the environment.

The government should not require housing developments to include green spaces or parks, but they should offer more funding for developments with green spaces and parks

yes, we need a lot of open, unpaved, nature-filled spaces. it helps reduce hot temperatures & global warming. also better for our mental health. and ban fake turf!

I think they should be incentivized but not required because it's more important that people have safe places to sleep than having a green space

Yes, I think it's a good idea to promote green spaces to further our children's health and be able to go outside and play.

No, companies already have to do a lot to build a building adding more restrictions would make people not want to build.

it shouldn't really be a requirement but having and green space and play area would be nice to have.