"We" may not need more (as en "we" that are alive today). But future generations would thank us if we would make structures that would last for 500+ years instead of 100 years. Much better for the very long term economy AND the climate.
Sure, having an old Colosseum or Aqueduct to look at is nice, but do you really want to live in a place where every single square inch of useful ground in the whole country is occupied by an ultra-resilient building that somebody thought would be useful 2000 years ago?
We have all of these examples of nice long-lasting roman architecture because those are the examples that survived. Romans didn't live in the Colosseum and the aqueducts. The Romans built hundreds of thousands of other buildings that fell down on their own or were demolished for any number of reasons over the millennia.
The Golden Gate bridge was opened 85 years ago. Is there any sane reason to demolish it in 15 years?
Would they? 100 year old houses are already dinosaurs in terms of energy use, and often it's a lot easier and cheaper to demolish and rebuild instead of isolating and installing modern heating. I can't imagine how outdated a 500 year old house would be.
Demolishing a building and re-building it in terms of total energy (and/or emissions) is not free of costs, maybe you don't pay them directly, unlike heating or air conditioning, but they do exist.
Right now 100 years old houses (the brick or stone ones, not the wooden ones, nor the reinforced concrete ones that are usually more recent) already exist and can be restored/upgraded (though of course with some limitations) with a minimal amount of work (in terms of energy and emissions).
More or less the "if ain't broken don't fix it approach".
Now, if we had some building material lasting only 100 years that could be manufactured with little expense of energy and low or no emissions, that would be another thing.
If we imagine that (hypothetical) there is a form of (say) square section bamboo that we can grow at little or no cost and that we can assemble with (still say) some vegetal cement or similar, so that the results of the periodical demolitions can be reused or recycled or that is however biodegradable, then a short lived building would make much more sense.
Having lived in one, I can assure you that upgrading such a house to modern energy standards isn't a minimal amount of work. Lots of these houses just have a single brick wall directly facing the outdoors. Insulating that means you have to basically completely strip the house down to the brick, and even then it won't be as good as new construction.
Of course demolishing and rebuilding also takes energy; but if you amortize it over 50 years or so, I bet in the end you come out ahead. Building technology has improved a lot in energy efficiency over the last century.
No, insulating that means that you add an extra set of layers to the outside of that brick wall, which can done without impacting the interior while the people are living in that building during the renovation.
You’ve never actually done this I assume? I have lived in a 1920s house during renovation. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. Should have torn it down; would have been better for the environment and my pocketbook.
I have, and there was a lot of drilling into concrete filled with tiny stones, that caused enough noise to cause pain in the ears. Only during working hours, though.
> would have been better for the environment and my pocketbook.
If you don't want to live in a building as it is being renovated, you can always rent something else for the time it takes. If the renovation takes less time than rebuilding, you also pay less rent.
The beautiful hand-carved crown moulding and stairs are nice, but not worth outrageous heating bills.