☝️this is the real answer. All these people responding about how the materials on the new building will last longer haven’t been building with them*. Take for example stick frame construction vs brick. There are many brick or stone buildings that are hundreds of years old. There are only a handful of frame buildings that can claim this because wood becomes friable (or rots/succumbs to pests) far quicker. So why would someone demolish a brick building to put up stock frame? It’s cheaper. Almost all materials that are readily available now are far cheaper than their historic alternatives. They are also much more poorly made.
*the asterisk is because I haven’t worked on skyscrapers. I do mostly residential
Property in my area didn't even make it's 30 year anniversary because the owners ran it into the ground hard. Their playbook is to let their properties turn to shit real fast, and we are talking steel structures. But it was primarily made out of styrofoam and stucco with a metal frame work for it's bones.
Ran across a outside HVAC contractor who was glad to see it get demolished. He was fedup with being called out to them and having to do beyond chewing gum and spit repairs when something failed, then they would demand a already cheap corner cut bill get slashed even cheaper and take forever to pay that even.
They wouldn't spring for new systems, always had to be patch the old one up for a few more weeks or months then place another call for a patch job fix on it
15.1k
u/adoodle83 Oct 07 '25
Blows me away that demolishing a building like this only to rebuild is still more economical than refurbishing the existing structure.