A lot of countries got bombed during WW2 and got a fresh start. I don’t want to be bombed.
You really lock in your decisions when you start a project.
From everything I've read, building (and rebuilding) in Japan is much more straightforward than in the states, or other Western countries.
We've invented many processes and regulations that were well-intended, meant to reduce abuse or exploitation (e.g. pollution, destroying local environment, etc) but also made it hard to build even things that are good, that we broadly want, like new infrastructure or more housing as housing prices rise.
In the US we don’t have much in the way of old/storied buildings, especially in the western half of the country. Maybe that’s responsible for disproportionate attachment to modern buildings.
And even these tend to get rebuilt periodically, and are regarded as the 'same' building.
Their buildings are meant for 30 years of use after which they hold no value and need to be rebuilt based on government recommendation. [1] The government may revise this number but it stands as of recently.
They have temples that have been built and rebuilt many times due to weather and nature. [2]
[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/31/how-tos/ja...
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri...
I thought that the whole point of homo sapiens is to use intelligence and draw conclusions quickly. Maybe I was wrong.
*Edit, fixed wording.
They ran out of undeveloped land long ago and were forced to increase density.
At least in California, cities are like 50-150 years old at best. Lots of cities are only running out of land now. In 300 years, I'm sure somewhere like LA will be dense.
I don't think that's quite it. Why would we hate change qua change? Change is neither good nor bad as such.
There's plenty we all wish was different (and plenty that should be preserved). Almost everyone wishes Madison Square Garden were demolished and old Penn Station were rebuilt. But it's difficult because buildings, and urban layouts, are enmeshed in a thicker reality than just stone laid upon stone. Look at the urban plans of European cities, especially ancient or medieval ones. You may find a few weird quirks in the way streets are laid out. For example, you might find streets that are circular, only to find out that this is because there used to be a Roman amphitheater there. Even some of the stones from the original structure are still present in the very foundations of the new buildings. Living, breathing cities are a network of dependencies, and it is not a simple matter to change how a street runs. It is very expensive, people live there, businesses operate there, property lines are what they are. Unless the justification is severe enough, there isn't enough reason to even think about doing it. That's why it is essential for us to get urban planning right in the beginning according to durable principles.
A random example fresh on my mind: I'm happy with my city renovating streets and improving infrastructure. But just now, the city started renovating three major streets at the same time, grinding all traffic in the city to a halt. Think taking 2 hours instead of 20 minutes to leave it, or a city bus that was, literally, exactly 199 minutes late. This suddenly disturbed our weekend plans, and at this very moment, I'm NOT happy with the renovations. It's not about the works and the changes - it's about the unexpected hassle this caused to me personally.
(Not that I would vote against the works. Maybe just towards not doing them all at once, and giving more warning.)
An middle class family with kids in school, saving for retirement and college, owns their home already, and decides to maintain an older home rather than build a new one.
I.e. If you already own the home, the best course of action for you in this particular year, with the money you have on hand, meets the constraints of your particular life circumstances. Global efficiency doesn't actually matter to you.
Ye doing maintenance is probably almost always worth it. Doing something before it is too late is like one or two orders of magnitude cheaper. Like painting the outer walls before the wood rots, etc. Fixing the roof before it leaks through both layers of protection.
The point I am trying to make, is that buyers seem to underestimate the cost of fixing stuff when it is "too late". I have a theory that there is more competition for houses the cheaper they are. So poorer people are forced to buy homes that are not worth what they cost. I.e. the poorer buyer would be better off buying a more expensive home that is cheaper to maintain in the long run, have to buy the cheaper home that need expensive repairs. If the market was only "rich" people, the bad homes would have a lower price to offset their repair costs. Or something ...