Admittedly I don't work in an seismically active region but I design for max settlements of ~50mm over a building's lifetime, and the Millennium Tower is experiencing that every year.
Really? That's what they design them for? That seems extremely short-sighted. What is supposed to happen in 60 years? Why were medieval structures able to last hundreds o f years but we can't do it now? Are new York's hundred year old sky scrapers due for being torn down now? I don't understand why anybody would think that's a good idea besides the fact that it'll be your grandchildren's problem and you won't have to deal with it.
Even when I moved away from there to a new city the flat I bought was in a building almost 200 years old.
I know that America is "new", and that modern buildings are, by definition modern, but the idea that you don't plan for the long-term, and that buildings aren't old is very surprising.
Buildings 200 to 100 years old are more common, but still suffer from many defects; unless renovated in a way that is essentially 'build a new house inside the old one'. Which is more expensive than knocking the old one down.
Anything less than 100 years but older than say 20 can be made to 'modern' standards, for some values of 'modern'. It won't be nearly as comfortable as a new house though, again unless renovated the expensive way.
Housing needs change. If you think we Europeans build for 100+ year use, you obviously know nothing about real estate or construction, and the history thereof. If you think the fact that we have a bunch of old buildings is because they were designed that way, you are very mistaken.
Re-purposing old buildings is very common in the UK, and whilst sometimes that might mean essentially ripping it all out and rebuilding form the inside-out that's an extreme case. When it comes to "public buildings" and "houses" that people live in mostly the changes aren't so drastic.
I'm sure that people putting up buildings in the 1600s didn't imagine they would still be in use, but the fact that they are is a good thing. What I'm really trying to say is that planning to build something with the assumption it'll be dead/useless/retired in a hundred years seems wasteful and short-sighted. Europe is used as an example of how things have turned out otherwise. Though I appreciate there aren't any skyscrapers/tower-blocks of that age in the world. Unless you think of tenement buildings from the 17/18/1900s.
None of the 100/200+ year old houses and flats I have lived in - both within the UK and other older European cities - have had any major defects beyond what some of my other acquaintances living in modern buildings have experienced. They have all been perfectly "comfortable" as a 'new build' property.
You can build much higher and bigger with reinforced concrete, but they will only be up for at most many decades, because steel always rusts.
Instead, you end up with differential displacement over the entire footprint of the building. Some areas will sink 1cm, while others will sink 3cm. This "imposed displacement" puts the foundation under constant force, causing some tremendous force to be placed on the structure itself, as the foundation is now behaving as a beam of sorts.
For a steel-frame building, yes. For a concrete high rise you're playing with fire. I'm surprised the building code allowed this.