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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

Yes, only if the proposed housing is affordable for the residents who currently live in the area at the time the project is approved

Yes, if public transportation/roads are expanded to handle the increased amount of people living in the area prior to residents moving in.

yes to a certain extent. its ok to add some new housing to high density areas but adding to much will bring in more people and then it will start getting over crowded.

The government should focus on high density population in an appropriate manner that won't destroy the environment.

Yes, and incentivize rehabilitation of existing housing stock and subsidize down payments for low income buyers

High density residential buildings are good for certain areas, but bringing them into the centers of suburban towns creates problems with many people coming in and out of a specific area, hurting the flow of traffic.

Yes, because we should try to minimize homelessness and it would help people find a better suited home for their individual circumstances.

If its reusing a currently inactive building then it has benefits but high density isnt always needed in certain situations due to the access of land

I think landlords should be dealt with swiftly and and corporations should not have any say in housing and boom we will have much more housing but yes everyone should be homed.

In this state I live in no in fact they should stop and take some down, for other places I cannot say.

There should be small projects to mildly assist the homeless so they at least have a safe environment but they should have to work to move further than that.

Out of context, it poses a different opinion. If this is for all people, people who genuinely need it, i think they should.

High density housing can be beneficial but it also poses a lot of problems, I think it's more important to make housing more affordable.

On one hand, there are so many apartments around here nowadays that contribute to the high price of actual houses; there are more apartments than houses at this point. But on the other hand, many houses that get made will just be bought and only be houseable by rent. The way I see it, the first step to people actually being able to own their house would be for more houses to exist - and that can't happen if high density residential buildings take up all the space.

I think that the government should allow other types of housing, but keep it from being high density.

The more high density residential buildings the more the population in those areas increase. The area becomes almost unliveable and chances are, in that particular area the high density buildings have very high prices for little living space. Encourage the people to move to lower populated states.

No, it can change the demographic of an entire community and increase traffic which is already bad enough as it is.

Yes, but only use for temporary housing for people for need. It could cause high crime, pollution, and traffic in compact population. It is not a permanent solution.

Yes, the layer of single family housing covering the country acts like a parasitic suffocating moss on humanity. Let people live near each other, and encourage interaction between them. Suburbs are only preferable when the cities have been poisoned. Nature and vast stretches of enjoyable wilderness can take the place of sprawl.

Density in terms of homes per building lot/reduce restrictions at local level to relax those zoning restrictions, but high rises above 5 tloors.