Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbine
Thanks for explaining it. I mean, in some ways it makes sense now, but it still seems a bit of a shame to be ripping down perfectly good housing and going through all the procedure of building a-new just to beat the paperwork.
|
It isn`t really just to beat the paperwork.
Japan has earthquakes - sometimes serious ones. In recent years techniques for strengthening a building have been developed, and there are currently strict earthquake tolerance requirements in place for buildings. However, in the past there were not. (Or those that were in place were much less stringent).
As buildings age they become weaker and more prone to collapse. And the heavier the building started, the greater chance of dying if it falls down on you.
So buildings were usually built with the assumption that they`d be torn down and rebuilt in so many years. Most were built with the assumption of a life of 20 or 30 years. 30 years later, the buildings are in terrible shape and are sort of at the end of their lifespan... Which is why they are torn down and new ones built. This is particularly true of buildings built in the first 30 or 40 years after the end of the war. The first batches were built with a 10 to 15 year lifespan in mind, and then usually replaced with something better but not by all that much.
If something is built to last 100+ years, then it is a shame to tear it down and build something new. But if it was built to last 25 years and 30 have passed... Well... Things are different.