I find this fascinating: "The rules around the market are different, too. For example, in California most houses are sold and bought as-is. In Japan, the seller is on the hook for up to an year for problems that weren't discovered at the point of sale."
In California there are many rules, permits, and processes that must be followed before building a new house. This comes from voters (residents) seeking to limit the rate of change in their neighborhood, and restrict change they would find objectionable (like multi-floor houses in a neighbor with all single floor houses). So buying an existing house is always "easier" than building a new one. Buyers are not responsible for any problems that were disclosed at the time of purchase and signed off on by the buyers. The buyer has the option (and should) to get a thorough home inspection prior to the purchase.
Contrast that to Las Vegas were my I spent my formative years where new houses were the norm and 'old' houses were depreciating because why buy an 'old' house when a 'new' one was the same price? This continued for a long time and pretty much covered the valley floor there with very similar looking houses. That has slowed some now that land to build on is quite far away from the rest of town. But I could see that tearing down houses on land closer to town and rebuilding them might improve the value of those houses.
The bottom line for me is that clearly municipal regulation has a lot more influence on home 'value' than a nominally open market would suggest. I always knew it had a some effect but it seems possible that it is perhaps the dominant effect.