>E.g. in the worst earthquake last few decades (2011) and only ~600 (4% of deaths) people died because of the earthquake itself. "Only" 600 people died because

>E.g. in the worst earthquake last few decades (2011) and only ~600 (4% of deaths) people died because of the earthquake itself. "Only" 600 people died because buildings were constructed to withstand earthquakes. Contrast that with other countries where buildings are not well-constructed, and an earthquake kills tens of thousands. According to you, buildings should NOT be made to withstand earthquakes, and should instead be preserved because they're old, and then when the whole city collapses due to an earthquake, killing hundreds of thousands, you'll just wring your hands about the poor old buildings lost. The fact is that engineering gets better over time as architects and structural engineers learn better how to design buildings to handle earthquakes while also being attractive, comfortable, energy-efficient, etc. You can't do that with old buildings; retrofitting an old building to improve its performance in these ways (even if it's possible) will always be MUCH more expensive than just tearing down the building and erecting a new one, just like trying to retrofit a 60s Mustang to perform like a new one will cost millions. There's a reason housing costs in Japan aren't high compared to, e.g. America, and keeping unsafe, ancient buildings around long past their good-by date isn't one of them.