High density housing refers to housing developments with a higher population density than average. For example, high rise apartments are considered high density, especially in comparison to single-family homes or condominiums. High density real estate can also be developed from empty or abandoned buildings. For instance, old warehouses can be renovated and turned into luxury lofts. Further, commercial buildings that are no longer in use can be refitted into high-rise apartments. Opponents argue that more housing will lower the value of their home (or rental units) and change the “character” of neighborhoods. Proponents argue that the buildings are more environmentally friendly than single family homes will lower housing costs for people who cannot afford large homes.
@9LTDTR81wk1W
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.
@9LW3ZGY6 days6D
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
@9M4BD821hr1H
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.
@9M49HF82hrs2H
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.
@9M44JLQ4hrs4H
There should be a limitation to how many people are living within one area. But to be more compact isn’t a bad idea
@9M3XVV95hrs5H
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
@9M3KMPP8hrs8H
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
@9M3BYHGConstitution11hrs11H
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.
@9M2SG2323hrs23H
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.
@9M2HQBSLibertarian1 day1D
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.
@9M2FKHW1 day1D
Yes, and the government should be able to use the concept of eminent domain if met with remarkable resistance.
@9M2F6J91 day1D
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.
@9M22HM61 day1D
Yes, only if the proposed housing is affordable for the residents who currently live in the area at the time the project is approved
@9LZW3862 days2D
Yes, if public transportation/roads are expanded to handle the increased amount of people living in the area prior to residents moving in.
@9LZK2TN2 days2D
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.
@9LZJ7YF2 days2D
I believe that if a building is no longer in use for that purpose why not turn it in to an apartment but if it is still in use and doing its purpose to let it keep doing what it’s doing
@9LZCBBV2 days2D
Yes, but it should depend on the area. Highly populated cities would benefit from something like this. But, it is also important to leave space for parks and other public spaces. They should also be constructed at least considerably close to schools, hospitals, etc,
@9LZ4SF3Republican2 days2D
Only in certain areas. In highly populated cities, this is more effective, such as New York City, but in places like Texas, it's not needed because of the number of land people have and how expensive it is to build and stay in an apartment, whereas in Texas, housing options are cheaper in comparison to New York. It would make more sense to buy a house there.
@9LZ42YB2 days2D
Yes, but while doing this other things should be considered. Such as healthcare availability, safety, schooling, and the thought of how such buildings will fit into communities, make sure it is less of a burden and actually helps people.
@9LYZ3B62 days2D
Only if the agreements are run through an audited non profit entity subject to salary caps on all higher executives.
We need to utilize the homes we already have, we have no shortage of empty homes but we have a shortage of homes that are not hoarded or too expensive.
@9LYVJ9ZCA Common Sense2 days2D
given how big the U.S. is as a whole, it would be stupid not to utilize disposable land to give everyone a decent amount of space. lets not make another Kowloon City.
@9LYNLSWWomen’s Equality3 days3D
Personally, I believe rent and the cost of mortgage should be lowered to allow for people to be able to afford to live wherever they want.
@9LYNHYY3 days3D
No, there are already plenty of empty apartments. We don’t need to build more, we need to fill the ones we have.
@9LYJWLX3 days3D
No, I think there should be a regulation on the operations of homeless shelters to ensure safety and privacy to the best of the shelter's ability- in order to protect and provide for those without homes that do not feel that a shelter is what is best for their own personal wellbeing
@9LY9QSQ3 days3D
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.
@9LY74S83 days3D
Only if costs go down so this will actually solve problems. Also, emphasis on "Incentivize" not "fund"
@9LY2YWW 3 days3D
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.
@9LXY4G33 days3D
Yes, but it should be focused on rennovating existing structures and maintaining good quality not developing new land and choking out the skyline.
@9LXVR7X3 days3D
Sure, but please make sure that there are safety measures for migrating birds and clearing the air that is produced.
@9LXSHCMWomen’s Equality3 days3D
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.
@9LXPXM93 days3D
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.
@9LXP64DProgressive3 days3D
The government should decrease the inflation of housing costs and limit how many family homes that large companies can purchase and rent
@9LXNW8FPeace and Freedom3 days3D
I feel like it depends on the individual's perspective and the benefits of the drawbacks of high density.
@9LXG8P24 days4D
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
@9LWRMMY5 days5D
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.
@9LWN55N 5 days5D
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.
@9LWJ6WX5 days5D
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
@9LVZY6MPeace and Freedom6 days6D
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
@9LVVKNH6 days6D
Sure but dont allow them to owned by megacomglomerates like blackrock but locals that have ties to their communities.
@9LVNDCD6 days6D
yes, but focusing on repurposing old buildings or construction grounds and not tearing away new grounds every chance.
@9LVMWGB6 days6D
They shouldn't really push it hard but should push for people to get their lives together and help themselves.
@9LVM2J36 days6D
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.
@9LVJFVHIndependent6 days6D
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.
@9LVG897Peace and Freedom6 days6D
Yes, depending on location. You can integrate them into a town without ruining the economy or value around it
@9LV9KJVIndependent 7 days7D
No, fix the influx of people coming in here as well as fix the economical brackets so people can have their own spaces
@9LV2MDXIndependent1wk1W
No, high-density residential buildings result in more aggressive and violent people speaking from experience.
@9LTVBNL 1wk1W
They should incentivize the renovation and reconstruction of older buildings to become this instead of creating new ones.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...