We do take down a lot of old buildings (or renovate them thoroughly) cause the old buildings contain asbestos, are not properly isolated, ...

> If we took the same approach to other engineering, we'd be constantly tearing down houses and rebuilding them just because we have better nails now. It sure would keep a lot of builders employed though.

This is almost exactly what happens in some countries.

which one(s)?

Pretty common in Australia. Theres heritage laws to try to prevent replacing all the old buildings, but often they are so undesirable the owner just leaves them vacant until trespassers manage to burn it down.

Have it in Japan too. You can clearly see eras in house design. Pre 1960 almost everything is wood. Then you have wood and plaster until the 2000s or so, and after that is plastic on wood. You can see the age of a neighborhood and its residents based on what houses are made of.

If the residents die and someone new purchases the land, the old house is (generally) torn down and a new one built.

Japan, famously. Oddly enough it actually works very well in keeping buildings cheap.

I agree. But, I think the execs just say, "How can we get the most bang for our buck? If we use X, Y, Z technologies, that are the new hotness, then we will get all the new hordes of hires out there, which will make them happy, and has the added benefit of paying them less"