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

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 they also have to have a scientifically proven amount of nature incorporated in the design of the buildings. And they should prioritize the collaboration of any small business the tenants have to build brick and mortar shops.

Only if costs go down so this will actually solve problems. Also, emphasis on "Incentivize" not "fund"

Yes in areas that are seeing an increase in residents and homelessness and maybe even have programs that can get homeless people off their feet and a temporary home. Some places do not always need to be build up.

Yes, but it should be focused on rennovating existing structures and maintaining good quality not developing new land and choking out the skyline.

Sure, but please make sure that there are safety measures for migrating birds and clearing the air that is produced.

The market prices are too high and interest rates are insane. People should be able to by a home with their over min wage income. This should be an issue.

No, but the government should regulate and lower the pricing of housing or provide finanical aid for those seeking to own a house but struggle with finances.

The government should decrease the inflation of housing costs and limit how many family homes that large companies can purchase and rent

I feel like it depends on the individual's perspective and the benefits of the drawbacks of high density.

Yeah maybe but also we should all get along and effetely have a way of safety and waste management. Another big thing is transportation for these people and activities to do among living freely near one another

Mixing it up is best, some areas do not benefit from high density, while other rapidly population-growing cities with limited ability to physically grow would benefit from it.

I think location should be taken into account. Mixed density is the best - some high density in high-growth areas and some lower density options. I think this is a problem that requires a spectrum for solutions.

No, this has been tried and has failed, rather zoning laws should be re-examined and NIMBY's should not be able to block developments endlessly

i think they shouldn't continue building houses evrywhere because more houses in peoples back yards are less parking spaces for people who own houses

Sure but dont allow them to owned by megacomglomerates like blackrock but locals that have ties to their communities.

yes, but focusing on repurposing old buildings or construction grounds and not tearing away new grounds every chance.

They shouldn't really push it hard but should push for people to get their lives together and help themselves.

Depends on the purpose and place of the construction. If it serves no purpose and is taking up unnecessary place of nature, then don't construct it.

I don't think it should be ENCOURAGED. Having many people in one building can get extremely chaotic and doesn't ensure safety of the people living there. They also take up a lot of electricity/water usually.

Yes, depending on location. You can integrate them into a town without ruining the economy or value around it

No, fix the influx of people coming in here as well as fix the economical brackets so people can have their own spaces

No, high-density residential buildings result in more aggressive and violent people speaking from experience.

They should incentivize the renovation and reconstruction of older buildings to become this instead of creating new ones.

Yes, however high-density buildings should take notes from other nations in order to influence construction along with any auxiliary functions it may have (establishment of businesses within a part of residential buildings to make them multi-role, making certain sections "assistant" segments that provide health or police or some other service, etc)

yes, more time they would start to incentivize for high residential buildings. when the place is more develup

I think they should add high density housing first before they expand in the rural areas for more housing.

yes, and focus on providing homeless people jobs, make educational programs for such individuals, cut the social programs for them not to spend money on drugs

Yes, as long as it doesn't encroach on suburbanized areas or destroy minority communities to make way for them.

No, these facilities will degenerate into slums that will be rife with crime and poverty regardless.

No, we have the housing. The prices are just unaffordable. It's financial, not exactly the lack of space.

Yes, but add minimum requirements for housing size, number of rooms, size of hallways, and overall quality of the housing to maximize safety, comfort, and space.

I believe that the current state of the housing market is chaotic, with wealthy people purchasing numerous houses, landlords hiking up rent, and average citizens struggling to afford homes. To address this issue, I think it's necessary to create affordable housing options while also implementing safety measures to prevent crime and the formation of gangs.

yes and no with the funding for these buildings it can send out the message that living like this is okay because you will have somewhere to go to but at the same time people living on the street can diminish a town

I feel that they should encourage high-density residential buildings because I think that would make more housing available and affordable for many families. However, these are normally within urban areas and I would be worried about attracting such a large group of people living in one building that could cause issues.

No, zoning laws should be liberalized to allow the most efficient use of land, and a land-value tax should be instituted to encourage development and discourage vacancy arising from land speculation.

I believe governments should conditionally incentivize the construction of high-density residential buildings. High-density housing offers substantial benefits like increased housing supply and efficient land use, but it's crucial to address potential drawbacks like overcrowding and gentrification. By providing incentives with requirements for green space, affordable units, and good design, governments can promote high-density development that benefits both residents and the community as a whole.

Stop discrimination against black Americans and give them these properties as well as loans that's tax free to build economic wealth as well as Generational Wealth.

These buildings are needed for some people, yet they shouldn't only have apartment complexes available.

If its safe yes, with some of that agricultural construction so its more fresh and eco friendly maybe.

No, I believe the more cities you have, the less enjoyable it is to live and own a house, there is nothing more enjoyable then a quiet country house with a forest for your backyard.

The government should merge all residential zones into one zone so as to not prevent their construction.

It is important to have enough housing for people but high density residential buildings often take over communities and increase the population too much.

Current vacant facilities, like old malls, should be incentivized to be renovated into short term housing for the homeless.

Yes, however make sure that there is adequate space for every tenant living there and that the building is made to handle such quantity of people.

Yes, but the amount of founding/bonuses shouldn't be determined by the quantity of the housing, but the quality.

Of course.

High density housing is simply efficient housing. Subsidies will bridge the gap, ensuring that the developers don't lose profit margins when making a socially-minded choice.

Yes, but up to a certain point. If that building is too destructive or has too much of a negative impact, don't