Getting to something old growth like will probably need like over 60 years at a minimal.
Reclaimed wood (depends on your application) is currently only like <5 times as expensive as new growth product.
While it's definitely true that the supply of reclaimed wood will dwindle, meaning that if you start such a project today, you'll probably be able to command a significantly higher price multiplier in 2090... I think that sentence alone explains why this doesn't happen at any significant scale.
We're probably talking about trees that would more than a human generation (and perhaps several) to reach marketable size.
There's market demand for consuming that kind of old growth wood, but it's wager that it's impossible for the market to produce it. As an institution, it's just too short sighted.
30 years is less than a human lifetime. Also, that's not the time you need for old growth, it's what you need for regular timber:
https://texasfarmbureau.org/timbers-a-crop-that-takes-years-...:
> The industry is doing better now. Timber farmers plant trees, thin them out every few years to allow the better trees to grow and then harvest when trees are around 25-35 years old. They then harvest, replant and start the process all over.
Where markets fail for being too shortsighted, we can always introduce governments or international bodies. Once you plant the trees, there is little upside in cutting them down and more upside in letting them reach maturity.
OTOH, these boutique managed forests will be vulnerable to the development of cheaper alternatives (such as compressing multiple crappy logs into a good one).
An interesting way to legislate conservation is to mandate pension funds to set aside a fraction of their portfolio for investments that take longer to mature, such as slow-growth managed forests.