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

Yes but with consideration for the aesthetic and also keeping strict boundaries on housing prices. It should be affordable and attainable but also aspirational

Yes but other infrastructure such as public transport, roads, parking and healthcare etc need to be able to support this

The government should change zoning to allow for more villas/townhouses and incentivise this instead (there is only units being built in the city and only big houses being built in the west, but nothing in the middle)

Yes, but not at the expensive of low density residential so not to overexpand the metropolitan areas and overpopulate urban areas.

Yes, although not that high density (Maintain liveable space and conditions)

Depends, only if the residential buildings are of quality built and safe for people to live in with enough space where you aren't hearing the neighbour's eat dinner. But I also believe we have enough land in this country to build and should offer other things like actual houses with enough land that your family can play on and live with. Other options could be building a fast train in between commuter cities like Gosford and Sydney or Brisbane and Gold Coast where in between these cities there is enough land to build larger affordable homes to be built for families to move in (based…  Read more on the high speed rail not being very expensive). I think we also shouldn't just demolish homes or residential areas to build a large high density residential building it should be only on older buildings or decommissioned offices that are safe and renovated to adhere to building codes etc.

The government should just do it itself.

Yes, but not to the complete detriment of low density, as too much high density housing could put a strain on exisiting critical infastructure.

Housing is a fundamental human right. If these buildings could be sold at a discount instead of leaving workers in a state of substandard living...

They should mix high density residential buildings with singly family homes in suburbs and in metropoles

Yes but only with those buildings getting the proper security benefits that come with the place. I don't wish for that building to suddenly turn into a criminal den from a few bad apples.

yes but not everywhere because it would ruin the feel of australia they can just but high rises in areas already developed with other tall buildings.

it depends on the emmissions produced, as the reason for such high rise buildings is to help the environment.

High density buildings are stressful on society, yet populations will grow, so it may mean that we have to do it anyway. (Only if needed)

As long as the costs are affordable and the buildings do not notably impact the local urban environment.

Different conditions exist in different areas. It is inappropriate to reduce block sizes to create treeless dystopias in established areas. Construction of high density housing near transport hubs is highly appropriate.

Yes/No; community consultation must be sort, and adhered to, before any new constructions or developments, which change the pre-existing site plans, commence.

Yes, but only in relevant areas, such as Melbourne and Sydney CBD, and suburbs that have well run infrastructure to support high density population such as train stations and efficient bus systems.

The government should incentivize the construction of homes on decent sized blocks that allow families to live with dignity and happiness, not create more violent slums full of miserable people.

No we should decentralise big country and quality of life should be focus I don’t believe In big Australia cap maintain current population

Yes, but only in new areas of development, and not at the expense of the character of long established suburbs.

Yes, high density housing near and around inner-suburbs of major cities makes sense and is a more efficient method to quickly alleviate the housing crisis for individuals and smaller families.

The government should focus on different housing options to make sure the housing needs of families and individuals are met

In the short term yes, but this creates many other issues like overcrowding of public space and services, parking etc. and human beings are not as healthy living in densely packed buildings with little nature.

Yes, but the impact assessment requirements should be stricter and allow denial of the development application.

Yes, but it must be low cost and sold privately to incentivise cheaper living for those who need it.

Build more apartments on top of shopping centers and other structures that take up considerable land

No, high density living reduces economic growth. As suburbs become overpopulated, prices increase through inflation rather than organically. High density living also puts strain on the public sector and its resources, reducing its effectiveness. The government should incentivize broader expansion away from cities and typical high density locations.

Yes, so long as they arent build by Lebs that close the business after they get paid so they can avoid defects

Too many dodgy developers. System wouldn’t be watched. Will cost millions to consumers if not heavily regulated.

make landlords illegal, houses are HOMES not investments, the only exception should be student accomodation in universities, other than that, any property should be owned by the resident

Yes, but not too harshly, and don't build properties to the point where the density is underwhelming to live in, and excessive land clearance must be done to build them

Yes, but also ensure surrounding infrastructure can handle the high density, such as adequate hospitals, parking options and public transport,

I think there is a need for increased housing, and Government housing. But have concerns that high density housing can be cheaply built, and working in a Community role I have seen many areas where there have been a lot of high density housing that has created a “slum” type environment. As well as lack of outside space for children to play, and creating heat zones due to lack of vegetation and large spandex of concrete.

Only in areas that have the available infrastructure to support this - or where the government will finance the expansion of infrastructure to support this

Yes but with very strict regulations and check to avoid ppl taking advantage of those desperate for home, they should have to have a garden space and we should also be increase the ability to live out of urban areas by enforcing more remote work rights, improving roads and public transport

Yes but in order to they need to improve infrastructure and transportation, while also keeping green spaces in mind

No, there should be more family based houses at an affordable price for the lower tax brackets, rather than expensive apartments that nobody wants

Do you want to look like China? High density housing is terrible for the mental health of people who are already struggling. High density building of residential or corporate should be minimised EVERYWHERE! in australia

Yes, as long as building legislation includes provision for a minimum amount of greenspace around the residential properties

A clear assessment of the troubles with housing combined with sustainable solutions is importsntnin consideration of policy.

Construction should be well planned and appropriate land given up for development by the federal government. The population should be kept stable to stop required development.

As much as it is important to add residency, I don't agree with the replacement of certain areas to do so (eg. Preston Market, Food Truck Parks)

Yes but prioritise high speed public transport to allow for more freestanding houses. Build further away from the city and also allow for areas such as Parramatta and badgeries creek to become satellite cbds to spread out economic activity

Goverment should run there own projects to build these and own the properties over having land developers profit off the issue or cut corners of which the QBCC do nothing about.

Within reason; Don't build a bunch of buildings in rural areas and in bushland, just empty vacancies or dead land around the city, no need to expand too much

there should be still spots of nature and space for backyards and stuff but still enough housing to stop the crisis

Yes, as long as they control the ability for landlords to monopolise housing and minimise rent hiking

Hard to say because these ecosystems harvest a high possibility of drugs, violence and mental health sufferers

depending on the population, if there is a high population then yes, if there is a lower population no

high density residential buildings, although i am unsure how 'dense' it really is, can be tricky as in personal experience, it forces many families into one small apartment

Yes, to better manage population and provide a compact home for single residents instead of unnecessarily large homes, covering more land and leaving less space for greenery.

This is a complex issue - studies on high density living have not always shown better social outcomes and Australia does not have significant housing challenges that require high density living. I think this question also indirectly applies ot Australia's immigration policies so cannot be answered in isolaiton

Remove all criminals and drug abusers from public housings and make it for the genuinely disadvantaged

only a little bit because if we build too many than there will be no land left and the animals will lose there house

It depends, if this is to sustain the current population OR if it's for purchase by rich migrants to use as investment profits

Yes, as long as they also incentivise the inclusion of low cost and social housing in these buildings.

Incentivise more multipurpose high density developments closer to the City, E.g. downstairs are shops and restaurants while upstairs are apartment units.

Residential buildings should be built for people who cannot afford housing or larger homes, but should not be encouraged to the point that they take over suburban neighbourhoods etc.

Due to the housing crisis, it should be assessed on a case by case basis

Yes as long as they are in an appropriate area and of good quality

It depends on what the community and the owner of the building wants to do with it

It can be an available option for many people but high density residential buildings have it's cons

Yes, but identify suitable neighbourhoods and suburbs. Before building high density residential accommodations, there must be adequate infrastructure built first, including developing and/or increasing public transportation corridors. Build health care, schools, local shopping centres together with building the high density residences.

Yes, but other infastructure needs to be able to support this, and not at the risk of other housing.

Yes, but work on sound proofing so that people in the residential buildings can do stuff like party/listen to loud music without having to interfere with the daily lives of other people in the building.

Always is said residents are responsible in actions of at less good borders in living as normal rents

should subsidise medium-density and well-executed high density which isn't just done to line the pockets of developers and investors

The government should incentivise building housing as much as possible, however it should spread out, rather than creating more high density populations in areas where infrastructure cannot keep up.

Only if passes by local council voting so people have a say as some areas should be protected for their busty and sustainable , natural environments

Yes, but ensure the high density buildings are in areas where people want to live in apartment style housing. Ensure the buildings are environmentally friendly and will be affordable for ongoing cost Solar etc.

Yes but also encourage the apartments to be affordable, with communal and green spaces, and possiblity for families

Yes, but they must build residences that suit the needs of families (ie. suitably sized bedrooms and living areas).

Yes but still allow community engagement to ensure a right balance of density and amenities is achieved that doesn't favour developer greed.

Yes, while maintaining the "middle gap" train of thought for infrastructure. High Density / Middle Density / Low Density housing.

No, we have a lot of land we need to be utilising and spreading out into rather then populating city’s that the roads and infrastructure cannot accommodate.

The government should have minimum standards for appartments as to make it more viable for young children and families, like Singapore has done with HDBs

yes - but have discretion into which areas these houses are being built ie not around heritage or tourist sites.

Yes, but introduce a bar of quality that developers must reach. So that new housing is also livable and well made housing that will last for decades

Depends on the nature of quality in how they are constructed and affordibility, but its also key to consider how houses can cater to certain lifestyles

yes but in a well thought out and planned manner that takes into consideration the environment and regard for the aesthetics of the towns

They should be building housing commission homes without resorting to making them hush density slums.

Yes, if it is to redefine abandoned buildings or unused warehouses. This shouldn't be instead of family housing estates

No, high density residential buildings further promote overpopulation & investors tightening the rental market

Only in areas where it makes sense and is close to public transport and services and where a good proportion are going to be affordable - not just lower priced than the rest, but actually affordable

Yes, but this high density must be planned carefully, in harmony with the area, not adding a 20 story building in the middle of single story houses.

No, government butt out and supply and demand via private enterprise will fix the issue. Government should reduce bureaucracy and costs for builders (but be struck inspections and penalties for dodgy builders). Reduce imigration and foreign buyers

Yes, but ensure there are provisions to allow for low density residential as well, and that they are not completely bought up by investors who don't use it.

Yes, but only in locations where it makes sense such as near public transport infrastructure, city centers, etc.

Only if building corruption is ended. Until then high density residential buildings are a liability costing people their lively hoods