Concrete construction lasts centuries. And if torn down, can be crushed and after separated from rebar, re-used as aggregate in another project.
Reinforced concrete is incredibly expensive to repair and maintain. Because of the dozen different ways it can rust and spall, you need to inspect it frequently. The longer you wait to repair it, the more costly it is. A great deal of our reinforced concrete bridges are now structurally unsound. And recycling it is expensive, difficult, and reduces its strength.
Roman concrete lasted centuries, even millennia. But it's very difficult for us to produce concrete of a sufficient quality to last a very long time, as there are many ways to introduce defects. Many of our modern concrete structures wouldn't last a century without significant expensive maintenance.
On the other hand, wood buildings can actually be deconstructed easier, recycled easier, composted easier, don't have a gigantic burden on the environment, and can be made quite strong, as well as lasting for centuries. They're also much easier and cheaper to repair and replace.
I live in the northeast, where 100+ year old wooden homes litter the landscape. The biggest problem with old homes isn't the wood - it's their dated construction methods. My girlfriend lives in what was essentially a wooden barn converted into a house. It wasn't designed or maintained properly, so it's slowly shifting and falling into disrepair. But a well-designed, modern wooden home can last a century or more with maintenance without falling apart.
https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-conc...
On top of that, large scale structural concrete is a fairly new technology, and while improvements to longevity have been made, many buildings will be lucky to make it to 100 years.
Also, is concrete actually reused like this at scale? Sounds unfeasible economically.
I haven't seen anything like that in my experience at all. House I grew up in is still going strong at 65, really quite a baby compared to most around me in my suburb.
Only know of one house which burned down completely, was torn down and rebuilt in the heart of the city.
Most significant damage caused to wood-frame homes tends to allow partial rebuilding and renovation without the need for tearing it all down completely.
When the owners decide to sell they usually get snapped up basically for the land cost - demolition cost and are torn down for "teardown" houses. In Chicago it's pretty common. Our street is about a 50% mix of 50s homes and < 10 year old teardown homes.
I know next to nothing about building construction, but I saw this article recently, which suggests it doesn't:
https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-conc...
found via http://www.notechmagazine.com/2018/09/no-tech-reader-21.html
I suspect most 80's houses anywhere in the world (concrete or wooden) are rather undesirable.
"What's the environmental cost" is not as relevant to most people as having a modern house, and what's the long term environmental cost of old homes with poor insulation?
Compared to cost of new construction, adding proper insulation is nothing, even if you rip out all the drywall.
That said, in my area, old houses aren't torn down because they aren't viable. It's because tearing it down and rebuilding a mcmansion nets you so much more profit/worth.
I should have been clearer: there are houses from the 80's that I love. However there are also many houses from the 80's that are built poorly or are just fugly.