I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. This article talks about housing in Japan depreciating rapidly: http://www.archdaily.com/450212/why-japan-is-crazy-about-hou..., a contrast to the U.S., where to some extent, properties gain in value. (Mostly the land value, but to a certain extent the structures as well).

I think it's reasonable that a 2+4 building built today last 20-30 years, is depreciated, and then torn down for an even more dense structure at that time. Over 30 years, building heights and technologies should be such that a more productive use of the space can be made.

In light of that, it doesn't make sense to spend extra for a “100-year-building.” Not everything needs to be a historic structure. We should recognize that some buildings should be [relatively] transient.

It's a plausible strategy as long as it's part of the plan. If you're in an environment that that makes construction difficult then cheap may not be the best choice.

Seattle still has too many taxes and fees for my liking. I appreciate the desire for below market rate units and and low income housing fees. But it's completely ass backwards. Taxes are disincentives. Don't disincentivize the thing you want more of!

Developers are slapped with extra fees if they want to build above a certain height. Complete opposite of what's correct. There should be a fee for not building high enough!

Le sigh.

Fellow Seattlite here... Do you have details on those building restrictions? I'm trying to come up to speed, but the complications of building in the city are more than I was bargaining for...

Context for non-locals: Seattle is on track to become SF with about 100k new residents each year and an already large housing shortage. The city is struggling to combat it, with regulations designed to force new construction to include affordable units, rather than letting existing inventory move down market with age. If they're taxing dense construction on top of it, I'm inclined to make a few calls to learn more...

Nah, it's only the land that appreciates. Buildings don't appreciate in value. (Unless it's some fancy one-of-a-kind work of art.)

It's a common tax dodge to try and make it look like the building appreciates in value.

See http://www.masongaffney.org/publications/G2009-Hidden_Taxabl...

Wood and concrete are perfectly valid for low rise construction. It isn't exactly "cheap" but reasonable. In fact, wood is much better than concrete in handling earth quakes.

If it wasn't for earth quakes, you can get up to about 30 or so floors with concrete, which is the standard in China (a bit overbuilt on wall/floor thickness, but quality is less than the states). Anything higher, you should go with steel, and anyways, I'm guessing steel is standard for high rise construction in earth quake prone areas, right? The biggest problem with steel is that the skills needed to work it are much greater, so you can't just through surplus farmer labor at it (which is why China doesn't use it very often).

Interesting corollary: the upper floors sell for far more than lower floors. My understanding is that often upper floor tenants will subsidize the lower floor tenants - the lower floors exist in order for the upper floors to be high.