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

No, there is enough empty buildings and houses to completely end involuntary homelessness. The government should incentivize the refurbishment of abandoned homes and 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

On a limited basis, where natural market forces are not working to accommodate the housing needs of the community.

High density residential buildings should only be considered if they can provide proper psychological and hygienic health standards. It would aid with reducing human expansion into the natural environment and provide more efficient and minimalist living standards.

It depends on the state or city because we already have a lot of states that have a high density or population and others that have little to no citizens at all

Yes, the government should incentivize the construction of high density residential buildings, and keep the prices reasonable.

Why can't we bring antitrust laws against those mega corporations, foreign entities, and billionaires who have bought up so much of the housing?
And could we work on the regulations and property taxes that make home ownership and home building so hard to do?
Could we break up rental monopolies and encourage private landlords?
I am currently homeless so this matters to me a great deal.
The current rental monopolies in North Dakota are making it impossible for me to get housing in this state.
And the laws favor the monopolies to the point of extreme corruption.
I have been forced out of my rental home 3 different times for peaceful political participation and legal political/religious/civic activities...
But I want to work for a living, and have a home with a yard and a garden.

I would rather not have high density housing everywhere, ruining the natura beauty of the planet that we live on

As long as there are properties that aren't considered luxury so everyone can afford the all over more beneficial scenario.

No, the locations need the ability to sustain the high density residential buildings with infrastructure needs.

We need more housing especially in these times. There is an overpopulation and immigration issue. We need places to stay.

depends on where it is. is it needed? is there still available land to build more housing that's isn't high rise?

high rise is kinda dangerous in terms of like a natural disaster, it's just more mess to clean up potentially

so no, not unless it's needed, and if it is then fine

Yes and no I think for people looking for a job but can’t afford housing then yes but if they want a roof over there head for free without putting in work to get out then no.

only until occupancy of current building is at capacity, it is then that I think that vertical building of residential buildings to an extent would be more energy sustainable and efficient.

if it's a place where homelessness is common then yes, otherwise no cause more water and gas will put into the air.

These abandoned buildings should be used as a partial subsidy housing to get homeless off the streets. The first month would be rent free and each building should hava security guard to prevent crime. Each building should also have an individual on site during regular business hours to facilitate getting a job. Each individual who does not have a job within 30 days will be give an additional 2 weeks. Of they still have no jo. They should be moved to a homeless shelter.

I don't really have an opinion on this, but I would like it if the government kept housing environmentally healthy.

there are many uninhabited buildings sitting around doing nothing. i believe that the government should prioritise using these buildings for residents, lowering rent as well to make living more accessible

As the population grows, more houses need to be built. However, many high density destroys the environment.

No, we have a lot of underutilized and overpriced housing already. Implement controls on housing costs and incentivize population diversity to drive economic growth in rural areas.

Yes, but there should also be good public schools, health clinics, parks, community centers, addiction centers & affordable grocery & other stores/services required to live a balanced, healthy life. Having lower cost housing by having these residential buildings can bring more crime, so id like to combat that

Not directly, but residential zoning laws should be deregulated, allowing for freer choice of property usage.

Yes, but don't take away available land. take areas that are run down like warehouses or create tiny home options in a community area.

Yes, but not in an area where the locals believe the above mentioned "character" of their neighborhoods will be harmed.

No, instead of incentivizing for-profit companies we should socialize housing to make sure that having the dignity of a place to live is a respected human right.

I think the construction of high density buildings will simply lead to the exacerbation of current issues we have with poverty as cheaper housing is a good thing it doesn't necessarily address the root causes of some problems. it would also heavily depend on the areas in which housing is built as it might affect rural areas with the current increase of suburban sprawl

Should utilize mixed density and mixed zoning. Revise the current zoning laws to make them less strict.

Yes and no if a landowner does not want to sell out the government should not have the right to claim eminent domain.

high density in the way of high population, no. We should not be cramming people into buildings like overcrowded chickens.

Yes, if there are strict guidelines ensuring that the buildings will be safe for everyone to live in

Incentivize more affordable housing as well as city planning when it comes to public transportation and less reliance on automobiles.

Sure BUT high density housing doesn't solve housing problems when people can't afford to live in the new buildings. They need to be affordable.

Yes, but having regulations against rent increases of new or existing residents of the surrounding areas.

Yes, but they should also require a certain percentage of the homes/condos to be sold to individuals (as opposed to all being rentals)

i believe that we are building to many building and there isnt alot of green so we should build building that can hold a large capacity of people.

No. Because nonprofit private developers end up owning these building paid for by the taxpayer. People can live in rural areas for cheap or smaller units if the market demands it.

Renovate existing abandoned buildings, use them to house the homeless, and incorporate programs to enable the homeless to gain wealth to eventually own their own home or apartments. This could be done in phases. A community to meet the immediate needs of the homeless to help them become productive members of communities, then they can move to a community of work and pay affordable rent, which will eventually enable them to professional development and opportunity allowing them to move into "normal" societal area/neighborhoods/communities/home ownership.

Use the unused spaces, like empty schools and other store types, to turn into low income housing with assistance, or even as homeless space to stay. Stop building new stuff when we have too many empty buildings already.

Only if necessary according to the density of the population and the number of those who would have a better condition of living if in high density residential buildings.

There should be a limitation to how many people are living within one area. But to be more compact isn’t a bad idea

Yes, and make sure rent is kept in a reasonable and affordable range as to not further push the concern of possible homelessness that many face

i feel like they can turn all these runned down places into new homes and stuff for people who dont have them however they dont have to make it luxerious

there has to be a better way than creating more projects but the government should incentivize affordable housing for all

Some should be available bug homes also should be renovated. People deserve to own a home if they work. Not energize wants to be stuffed in a tiny apartment.

No, instead of this the government should regulate the amount of properties you can own so tons of houses that could be used to house the homeless aren't sitting empty.

I think the government should encourage lowering the birth rate. We're full to bursting on this planet. And we don't have a plane B.

I think the government should incentivize people to move out to more rural areas to spread the population out. Which, would provide more funding and education opportunities for people in that area.

Yes, and the government should be able to use the concept of eminent domain if met with remarkable resistance.

Yes, but make sure that they are well built and environmentally friendly in order to reduce their environmental impact. This decreases the population that is homeless.