Should new housing developments be required to include green spaces and parks?

All developments should include flood mitigation efforts which could include green spaces and parks.

i think every house should have green land on there property and have a park in the same neighborhood. so that there are places for animals to live and everyone to play on.

Yes, but after a certain critical threshold of housing is reached, green spaces and parks should be required (with flexibility in how it is integrated).

It shouldn't require, but it is preferred just to benefit the scenery and help the natural environment.

whatever it feels it needs because yes it would be nice, but we also already have a lot of greener around the planet.

Yes, and those green spaces should include native plants that make sense for the landscape, and those spaces should not be turf grass lawns.

In circumstances where this could potentially create financial problems for local citizens due to gentrification, then no.

We should restrict new development and incentivize utilizing property that is already developed for rezoning.

The city should work with developers to determine if green space should be incorporated for each individual project

Yes, the gready developers are trying to build on every square inch of land and it looks terrible - it's ruining our community! Numerous studies show improved mental health and quality life when nature or green spaces surround us.

No, implement a Land Back policy which returns all government-held land to local indigenous tribes instead

i dont think all housing development units should do this only if there is not green space and low quality parks in the area

no shouldn't be required but it is a great idea and if the consumers start buying into those areas more then the open market will make the adjustments

Yes and they need to be mixed use zoning with a full range of services within a minimal distance from each residence.

I don't think builders should be compelled to include them; however, the disparity in means between investors/developers and the local populace does make me feel as though green spaces should be available and protected.

New developments should be offered tax breaks and other "carrots" to beautify the land they develop.

It depends on the local area. Regardless, this is something that each city should decide on their own.

Yes, but only if the lots within the development are under a certain size and should reflect natural landscapes

No regulation. If anything, they minimum property size should be raised to stop full stripping of land for sub developments.

No, green space and park requirements would undermine housing density and would likely restrict access to those green spaces to residents of the development only. Green spaces and parks should be provided by the city under public ownership

This should be decided locally, but yes green spaces and parks ought to be an important consideration in housing development

A certain percentage of the land should be required to include green spaces or recreational spaces for residences and the environmental impact.

Yes green space with minimal upkeep, but not in a Single family community where they already have yard spaces.

No, deregulate property development and reduce the scope of zoning laws so that developers and local governments can provide these amenities as they are demanded by the consumer.

I don't think it should be required but I do believe that it is a good idea.

It depends on the area of the city. If it is too technological, yes.

i think it should be 50/50 because not everyone can afford it or want it.

No, but provide benefits to those that do include green spaces.

No, but more public investment should be put into these considerations

Recommended but not required but in high denser areas like Chicago, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, New York, etc. I could see it being required.

Housing developments in general should stop being created, and construction money should be focused toward making more affordable houses.

It depends on how much the community can spend, if its a low income area I think that would be a little unfair.

Yes if there is a way that they can do it without increasing the housing cost

I think they should be encouraged but not required

No, a decent standard of living must be prioritized,

I think it is good to allow more spaces for such things but I don't think it should be a requirment.

It depend son the available space around a proposed development, and existing presence of community-oriented infrastructure.

Yes for all children and pets that inhabit the housing developments

I don't believe it should be a requirement but rather voluntary

Maybe, it would be nice to have housing near parks and green spaces for the kids to run around near

only in certain areas, some areas don't have enough space

Yes, parks and green spaces are a welcome sight compared to buildings, traffic and garbage…they couldn’t hurt, it makes one feel connected with nature

They can expand them but not too much where nature will get token up and animals won't have a lot of places to live in that area

Dependent on the area and average income as these spots tend to increase prices

Yes, but prioritizing increased density and access to mass transit needs to be part of the solution as well

No. They should have them but they shouldn’t be required.

doesn’t matter if they have them, would be a nice addition though

No

Yes