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

Should definitely prioritize and incentivise redevelopment of old warehouses, old commercial buildings although I don't like the ideas of flats and high rise buildings

No. They should aim to build more individual homes rather than cramped and crowded tenements with no privacy.

Yes, The government should also fine councils who do not increase their residential buildings by the required quotas to fund the incentives.

Well yes but psychological research shows people living high up and away from nature are also experiencing lower reported wellbeing

This is a solution however I strongly believe that good quality of life should be a human right, constructions of high density residential buildings are often ugly and is destructive to the local environment.

No we need the building of more new towns where people can actually afford and live to raise a family.

No they should not, however creating affordable and also free housing for those in need, converting out of use buildings to provide selter

They should incentivize the construction of safe and affordable housing. High density suggests a lack of safety.

Depends on the place, natural beauty and plans for long term development in the area to support the high density buildings.

Yes, only where the local environmental can deal with an increase of population. Or also build more schools, dentists, doctors etc as part of the incentive

Yes, in very central areas. Moving quickly into larger areas of medium density (4-9 stories) akin to Paris.

So long as its with the intention of creating cheaper well strucutured buildings so first time home owners can have a baseline. not to isolate parts of society (e.g. keep people that are poor all in one place or keep one group of people that all work in the same factor) seperate.

They should be like the blocks during Communist Russia, high density and a lot of space for the resident(s)

Yes, but must have strict controls for power, water and parking. The building needs to be eco-friendly.

Yes but they should be policed or have on site security so that people are still safe within there own home otherwise it will be abused and it will end up entire floors willead to drug dens, sex trafficking and other offences.

Yes so long as the available houses are fairly priced so young adults have the ability to purchase or rent the spaces to live in

This seems like a weird question more diversity is good but adding arbitrary incentives for this feels unnecessary. Unless it is show that certain groups are discriminated against in the opposite direction.

Yes but only if it comes with local amenities, schools and opportunities for healthy social development.

Yes, but the flats should be subsidised to allow pricing dependant on income, and investors should not be allowed to buy to let.

Yes, but it should not affect the environment. Should stick to the buildings original blueprints if there’s no safety risks and extend to increase security and safety concerns

Yes, but they should be comfortable and developed with extra amenities and social spaces, with regular legislated maintenance and investment.

Yes, but utilising the space effectively and they should be pleasant to look at with lots of plants.

Yes, but increase regulation and liability for companies and high-up individuals who skirt these regulations

Only if the quality of the building is sufficient for a high quality of life. A repeat of Grenfell should be avoided

Yes, but to a healthy extent. We should be building more places for people to live on all the land we have all around the UK, but we shouldn't build houses in a way where it is just about suitable for living in. There should be a standard.

This depends on why the bulding is being built and if its important for the local area to have it there

They need to improve the quality of housing and lowering the prices for all, and if that involves making high density residential buildings, then that needs to be done safely.

Yes on brownfield sights when made well, sympathetically to architecture, and environmentally friendly.

No, just introduce laws against owning multiple homes. This will reduce house prices and free up space

Low-rise accommodation, as in mainland Europe would improve housing in cities and towns. I oppose high-rise residential buildings.

And price everyone out, the average person like myself. It makes places look classier but how does it help the homeless etc?

Only if mixed with social housing and due regard given to local amenities green spaces and aesthetic appearance

Spaces for communal areas and access to nature, and encouraged members to have closer communities and membership

The government needs to focus on actually committing to getting areas outside of the south east to be more economically active again instead of just endless soundbites. If jobs are economic activity are more evenly spread over the country then housing demand will spread out meaning less demand in a few areas.

Only worth doing if the building is gonna be of high quality. Too many new builds are made sub standard

I think they should invest in tiny home & make similar style apartment blocks to Sweden where there are more communal features such as laundry services.

In certain areas, utilise unused commercial buildings or land. Not high rise. No more than 5 floors.

Yes, but in a safe manner so as to not affect the environment or pose issues of unsafe buildings.(risks of flooding, quick builds that have a high risk of collapse).

Yes, in average income areas- levels crime rate rather than putting them in low income and there will be lots of crime

The government should be focused on repairing current houses ensuring they are really fit for human habitation. And restoring dilapidated houses.

Provided that this sort of development isn’t used and offered to homeless immigrants etc should come from a diverse population of working people

Yes