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

Only if it is affordable for the average earner in the UK. currently high rise buildings are becoming so luxurious that whilst we have a lot of housing people can't afford to live in it.

High quality residential would be great if it is well thought out architecturally and for actually living in, with quality materials and leaseholds should have non-increasing ground rents, limited service charge increases that are highly regulated and importantly, stop price gouging for apartments that are bought for a higher price than they're worth due to faulty evaluations which leave people with less equity post sale.

Only where thorough research has been carried out to show that this is the type of housing that will benefit the local community the most, taking into account impacts on the environment and the suitability of local infrastructure.

Only in major cities as HDRC (High-Density Residential Complex) take up lots of funding and resources.

In certain areas such as large cities, areas of growing economic importance etc… but housing should also be done in a way that promotes community values.

Yes and build them using a publicly owned company and the govt owns them making them into council homes, housing people on low income.

Yes, but high-density residential buildings should be constructed in pre-existing dense urban areas, but not in rural or suburban areas.

Only in cities where the land value is considered high and where commercialisation is common, not in rural areas or anything.

Depending of how many people are considered "high density". If a reasonable amount never on greenbelt land.

Depending on how many people are in this "high density". Also if a reasonable amount it should never be build on greenbelt land

High density is good in places. However it shouldn't be high rises, and shouldn't affect the towns character.

They shouldn't incentivise it but should do it on a smaller scale as long as its not on greenbelt land.

Yes, but add regulations that force landlords to maintain upkeep on such buildings to avoid the creation of slums.

As long as they're not building on green spaces/forests/land, and only on spaces where there are abandoned buildings/deserted land.

As long as it isnt on wildlife/green space then I support it. I support it when its on old building land

Yes, incentivize high-density residential buildings to address housing shortages, reduce sprawl, and promote environmental sustainability, but also ensure that infrastructure and community services keep pace.

Yes, but high density buildings should be of traditional build, fitting with historical architecture.

No, we need to ensure we maintain a balance between urban and natural environments and protect our natural landscapes from urbanization.

Yes, only if they are affordable, are of a good quality and are just as safe to live in as regular housing

yes, and the government should effectively fund this initiative and conduct audits on the quality of these buildings

Assuming the work is done properly within regulation then yes, although this is not the case a lot of the time

On the matter of high density or low density housing. Well that's all up to the developers of said area

The government should providing funding for local councils to construct publicly owned high density residential buildings.

The government should focus on spreading the wealth across the country rather than pooling it in major cities. Hence there would be no need for high density buildings as housing will be spread further.

No, but only because we already have a large excess of empty houses/flats that are too expensive to rent ir buy

We need more housing availability but this needs to offer a reasonable standard of life. We had high density accommodation in the 19th century. They became slums and were replaced.

Yes in some areas as there are housing issues in some parts of the country but not in areas of appreciated housing

There is a housing crisis in the UK so for that reason I would say yes, however as they are so dense maybe it is not ethical as these buildings/flats woiuld be small and cramped which for exampe could increase transmission of illness and therefore more people would be off school or work.

High density residential buildings allow for more people to find places to live, however it may affect the rural areas if too many are made

Yes, but the government should specifically ensure that this high-density accommodation should be of sufficient quality for living in for a sufficient period of time. They should be regularly inspected and rated by a non-corrupt independent organisation.

Yes as long as they are safely constructed so that the infrastructure is designed to last for a long time rather than maximizing how many people we can fit in there NOW

designate certain zones in high density areas for high density in town and city centres for newer cities but keep historical buildings at historical and older towns with history

If they follow through with this concept, external problems like crime & drug use. You need to deal with social aspect before giving them housing.

Super big high-density buildings are not great. Single-family homes are even worse for any city if it’s the only type of housing built. There should a middle ground of Medium-density housing that would be affordable, safe and visually appealing. It has been proven to be the most effective type of housing. So it is somewhere in the middle between detached houses and high rise buildings.

Yes in abandoned or unused locations but only if it doesn’t devalue other homes or negatively change the character of a location

i feel like it should be available for the people that its affordable to but for those who can afford better and want protection should have homes to have more safety from things like fires or issues like that

Yes but only for those who deserve it, they should be kept to a good and healthy standard. Allowing everyone to live in them safely.

I feel more could be done to develop existing derelict housing, or transform former abandoned city centre retail sites into affordable housing/apartments

Policies should be placed to restore historic buildings into affordable homes, too many homes are purchased and left to rubble before being replaced by ugly expensive and poorly constructed flats/homes

Yes, only if they are constructed in the such a way that communities are not isolated and residents are no ghettoised. These cannot be cheap shoebox tower blocks, they need to be affordable and thought about in terms of access, well lit areas, enough natural life, central youth club, community rooms, old people’s space, meeting spaces, and they need to be thought out to be part of the city or community. Made aesthetically pleasing instead of brutalist and deliberate classist eyesores. High density housing does not have to be dangerous, isolating or ugly.

The government should incentivize the construction of high-quality, affordable fit-for-purpose residential buildings.

The government should incentive the construction of affordable homes, green spaces and residential buildings that focus on the living standards of the residents. Not just cramming people in for profit

No, living in high density areas is a major form of mental illness. People feel unwell when living around high amounts of strangers and feel alienated.

There are a lot of vacant properties that could be renovated - I also believe that the immigration issue has a direct impact on this

Places like Quarry Hill flats in Leeds didn't work, though it was seen as an amazing, modern development with facilities in site. Dignitaries from all over the world came to view it. The area ended up being "no-go" with crime rates sky rocketing - along with depression and suicide. High rise blocks filled with working class people, don't work either, and for similar reasons. We all need a little space in our lives so building cheap and packing people in is a terrible thing to do. Dense living is fine for short periods while studying at uni, moving for a job while single ( or possibly in a couple), working odd shifts and enjoying privacy behind your front door but families and those looking to settle into a proper home would quickly loose the will to live in such dwellings!

As long as they are built with strict safety regulations and do not obscure historical buildings or the landscape

Only within strict quality controls and culpability for those who cut corners for cost reasons (flammable cladding etc), high density works but only if done to a safe standard

No, incentivise gardens and a minimum of 25% of public green spaces per km2 instead to counter CO2 emissions.

Only if they are built safely and securely with well monitored waste management, electronics testing programs, and fire proof cladding to prevent fire and loss of life. well funded schools, hospital, and doctors, and a community allotment to service the flat blocks.

Yes but it should also work to ensure the infrastructure and public services can manage the increase in residents

Yes but only if there is proper cycling and walking infrastructure and services embedded into new developments - and environmental surveys and mitigation obeyed

Only in conjunction with laws against a certain amount of affordable rental housing is offered within

I don't think so. This sounds like it would lead to dwellings that weren't particularly well thought out and might be overcrowded. There are sufficient areas around our towns and cities to develop lower density housing

The government itself should be responsible for providing affordable housing rather than incentivising private companies to construct because you cannot trust private companies to keep it affordable.

Only if the area it's being built in can accommodate the amount of residents moving in. I.e Hospital/school facilities. If it makes the area overpopulated and overcrowded then they shouldn't be built

No High density residential dwellings cause social issues as people have limited space and privacy and crime rates go up

Yes but only if subject to strict quality control and there should be a legal minimum size to ensure developers do not just squeeze as many tiny apartments in as they can.

that depends on what other services are constructed alongside high density housing. Also where it is built e.g. brown field sites closer to work opportunities rather than greenfield sites far away from work opportunities

No, it is currently not regulated well enough, resulting in buildings that are not fit for living in and could cause harm to life

Needs to be a holistic solution:
1)Any land purchased for development must be developed within a tight timeline. If not then the land must be sold with a cap of the original purchase price. Local authorities need an external body to influence and guide to stop back handlers corruption and poor quality construction

I agree with more multi level apartments such as 5 or 6 floor buildings similar to Paris, but I would be against high rises outside of immediate city centres.

High density residential.buildings do not work in all areas there needs to be more affordable housing

No. But the government should enforce reproductive restraint on the irresponsible reproducers. This after all the root of the problem: too many people, too few houses.

The government should fund more council housing affordable safe and clean plus it will provide a income for local councils

Yes, providing the homes are affordable, in keeping with the area and the area’s history and heritage are respected.

So long as the buildings are of high quality, are safe and comfortable to live in, and are cheap to rent so that those living in them can save up to buy a house of their own within at most five years.

Yes, only to create more affordable housing for those who need and meet good conditions and are in partnership with surrounding communities

Not if it contributes to gentrification of an area. Housing should be affordable to the people who already live there. Not high rise expensive new flats

Yes, as long as the public transport for the area can handle high density residential and is affordable.

Only if they are built with safe fire proof materials. There should also be a limit on how high buildings can be to make them safer. In addition, we have to be careful of too high of a population with too many residential places being built and not enough entertainment places.

Yes, with controls to ensure that a minimum quota of that residential space is sold to families and not to landlords

Not in already densely populated areas, congestion is too high in central locations. Housing further out with significant investment in transport links to avoid congestion

Yes, provided they do not become an eyesore in cities and that the transport of the area is capable of keeping up with the demand for new housing.

Yes, but build on top of e.g. underground / train stations etc so that there is real value in the convenience of living there - which would then keep the value of those flats / homes. Separate proposition to single family homes.

Yes but only if the individual homes and parking are of a suitablr size, currently this is not the case

No because they do not foster a sense of community or belonging. Gentle density residential buildings with communal spaces and green features like solar panels and heat pumps etc. should be incentivised.

Building upwards and not outwards. Make concreting over gardens illegal. Make tree planting in new estates mandatory with a twenty year maintenance plan and compulsory TPOs.

Locally to me there are hundreds of new homes being built, however they not for local ordinary people as they are too big and expensive. MORE social/affordable housing is needed urgently.

Should be nice looking buildings to give cities diversity instead of copy and pasting the same design.

No, they ugly and lack any personalisation. There should be more incentives for the public to build houses to their own specs on allotted land. This will allow people to add a personal touch, more GREEN / ENERGY incentives, rather than bashing out boring, broken new builds by developers looking to make a quick quid and cut corners! Works great in Netherlands...

Attractive, supported housing should be built to encourage older people to move out of their large 'family' homes. High density housing should only be built with infrastructure such as schools, shops, healthcare etc.

Yes, but a combination of densities for residential buildings is required. As is the infrastructure to support them; schools, transport, etc.

Building flats is not the answer to providing homes. Flats do not make a happy home to those with children. Empty homes, under crowded, and rich people with too much land is the problem

Limited space per person has been shown to negatively impact mental health. Land reform, and planning reform is required to enable more housing. Second homes should be included in a wealth tax.

Yes but ensure quality living with cost effective environmentally friendly housing and all newly built flats should have a balcony or outside space.

No, impact on loss of green spaces due to construction leads to longer term impacts on the economy, health services, and individual circumstances. The construction of residential buildings are also unaffordable for many so what’s the point

No, they should put money towards improving the quality of existing high density residential buildings

Investigate other solutions to ensure people can access good quality housing with access to the natural environment

Incentivise construction of good quality residential buildings that are sustainable, low carbon and offer wellbeing benefits

No, but, a consensus on what constitutes acceptable living standards should be reached and require a 2/3 majority in the house. Then buildings that fit that bill that is social housing and partially government-owned should be incentivised.

the environment is in danger and many derelict houses should be redone rather than ruining rural areas for more homes

Yes, in area's where the Housing is of poor quality (old). Can think of one area in Northampton where the Housing is very old and looks quite dilapidated. However, given that it is close to the centre of Town, and most importantly from a Developer's point of view is on a very steep hill, it will be more expensive to Develop. In my opinion that is why they keep developing Green Field Sites.

Yes, within reason and monitor buildings standard and ensure it is run through social housing schemes without the right to buy afterwards.

The government should build it itself instead of giving money to developers and not getting any return on their investment

Yes, but only if developers follow certain rules such as encouraging biodiversity, green spaces, affordable living spaces, invest in the surrounding areas etc.

They shouldn't incentivise a particular style of accommodation. In my opinion our planning laws in general are beurocratic, onerous, and overly restrictive. Effort should be made to simplify it to incentivise house building