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

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

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

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.

Yes, and introduce legislation ensuring individuals and businesses cannot purchase it all just to rent out to others.

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 the high density residential buildings should provide enough space that you could live comfetablely in the building

Yes, however, the development of infrastructure to support said construction must be facilitated. Additionally, resources (money, time, etc.) should not be wasted in this endeavor and just practices must be adhered to.

Yes, whilst simultaneously optimizing a healthy residential/entertainment/nature ratio and preventing gentrification.

Government should re focus on building Housing trust houses for the millions that will not be able to afford rent in the coming decade

Australia is an extremely large country with minimal population, surveying of central Australia should be a priority to make it sustainable and liveable

I think having some of these buildings cant hurt, but I am against the idea of removing traditional houses. Just build a few of these high density buildings, but keep traditional houses as well

High density residential buildings are an crucial part of the housing crisis solution, but the specific intention of the building determines the effectiveness as a solution. Social housing will create more of an issue, where retirement villages or apartment units would help alleviate some of the issue.

Yes & No we need homes and development of regional area with smart infrastructure should be a priority. High density living is also needed but should not be a priority. This paired with more employers allowing work from home giving more incentive to live in those areas.
The government needs to focus on lowering building costs.

No, but incentivize the construction of single family home neighborhoods over high rise apartment blocks.

I Believe that the Government shouldn't make Residential areas To Busy, and instead we should look into expanding into suburbs or looking into placing more High density residential buildings in other places and expand cities.

Depending on the area and population density. However if you can retrofit old warehouses into being an apartment block that’s fine, but not every area needs high rise buildings.

How do you envision the future of housing in big cities, and what role do you see high-density residential buildings playing in it?

Considering your personal lifestyle, how well would you adapt to living in a high-density residential building, and what factors would influence your decision?

Would you prefer to live in a high-density residential building if it meant shorter commutes and more amenities? Why or why not?

Do you think there's a stigma associated with living in high-density housing, and if so, what could change that perception?

Have you or someone you know ever experienced a change in neighborhood character due to new high-density developments? What was that like?

Do you believe that the environment benefits more from high-density living situations than from suburban sprawl? Give reasons for your view.

What personal advantages or disadvantages do you see in living in a high-density residential area compared to a more spacious, single-family home neighborhood?

How do you feel about converting historic or abandoned buildings into high-density housing, and do you think it preserves or erases history?

How do you think the presence of high-density housing impacts the sense of community and neighborly connection in an area?

In your opinion, could high-density residential buildings help solve housing affordability issues in your city? Why or why not?