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 if we're talking converting abandoned buildings, it shouldn't be a "luxury" style home, but something more affordable.

Only in certain locations and only if the housing is truly affordable and open to not just low income earners, but the working and middle class as well.

I feel that it good to have the apartments but having to many is a issue. the thing is more people prefer single family homes over apartments including myself.

Should not be a long-term solution. Short-term, it works, but we need more affordable housing at livable densities.

No. The government should focus on building mental health institutions for the homeless and ban corporations like Blackrock and Vanguard from purchasing residential housing.

I dont think high density would be beneficial those who suffer from houslessness struggle when transitioning back to homes if the space is too large. Tiny transitional homes would better

Yes, but these new buildings should be centered around walkability, public transit, and should be built to be human-scale.

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.

It depends on the end result. If it is just to get inexpensive housing for less fortunate people without addressing causal factors, no. If it is to generate more housing for a bustling area that has a spike in growth, yes. Either way, there also needs to be a focus on infrastructure as well to accommodate the influx of people.

The government should prevent corporations from buying up single family housing to drive down the price of homes available to families

There should be some sort of charity event, fundraiser, or being able to sign up so you can help make buildings for people through taxes.

Implement a Georgian tax instead. It would accomplish the same thing with far wider reaching benefits

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.