Should the government incentivize the construction of high density residential buildings?

No

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.

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

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

Yes, but the construction plans need to be heavily thought about and voted in (the location) by a neighborhood or city council.

Yes, high density AFFORDABLE residential buildings which do not cause property taxes to skyrocket and push out long-standing residents, should be incentivized.

In municipal areas where high housing density is required and in areas that will not suffer environmental degradation only.

Yes because means more people but no cause it will also make property for everybody more expensive I think.

Yes, we should also be concerned with the availability of vacant homes and should be funding their refurbishment. In terms of the current question these developments should be in coordination with concern over adequate adjacent infrastructure

If buildings can be developed from other empty or abandoned buildings they should focus on shelters for the homeless, things that are needed.

The government should not "incentivize" housing types, it should remove troublesome regulation that disincentivizes certain construction types.

Yes but also there is a lot of under utilized housing that could be rehabilted into multi family dwellings.

Yes, and zoning laws need to be changed to allow for more public space and residency, and housing should be free and accessible to all citizens.

I would like to see old abandoned buildings like malls actually be turned into something useful like housing but we do not need to be building mega buildings everywhere unless they are very eco-friendly.

No, the government shouldn't help any company. If they want to give money away, give the people money for housing directly.

This can help on reusing old buildings that are still in good condition to be used for housing for people that might not have a place to live

Yes, in major cities. Suburbia is a part of American culture and should also be preserved simultaneously.

we should give people adequate and affordable housing but also we should have too many buildings to the point where they take over natural spaces

We need affordable living and this could be a solution in theory. Just hoping that landlords won't be able to sustainably jack up prices if we do get more high density residential buildings.

If the area is under constant construction for more than 3-4 years, then the residents should get something.

Yes, in specific regions where they are needed or, in some cases, in an attempt to bolster local economies.

yes but make sure its still safe so nothing can go wrong and if in that precedent it minimizes injury or loss

Yes, but they shouldn't be quite the same as normal housing. They should be specifically geared towards helping homeless individuals.

They should just create a building for all the homeless/poor people to live and if you don't want it its not our fault

I feel that yes while old buildings that are falling apart should be knocked down and rebuilt but if you add to many homes into an area then it will be over crowded and no enough space for those already there

This would depend upon whom they would be available. Would they be for profit, even with government incentives? Would they be available to address a homeless situation?

With the increase of populations in cities, Building more apartments or living spaces is necessary. Yes but to an extent, and to keep it humane living condition.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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