[Alexx]

Fascinating. I had absolutely no idea.

As someone who lives in a property that's over 140 years old, which has been fully renovated, modernised, and improved (at a guess) maybe 10 times over its life I find the idea of housing as a disposable assets rather alien. Granted, there are no earthquakes here.

I wonder what the social and economic trade off is between maintaining and modernising a building for hundreds of years (considering energy efficiency and standard of living too) vs just knocking it down and building a new one every 30 years.

The article doesn't mention the effect this has on the rental market - If the asset depreciates I can't imagine being a landlord is a very lucrative proposition?

[fjk]

"If the asset depreciates I can't imagine being a landlord is a very lucrative proposition"

That's not necessarily the case. Traditionally, landlords make money on 1) cash flow from tenant rents and 2) appreciation of the property at the eventual exit. In Japan, it seems like 2) is out of the equation, but if 1) is high enough, owning rental properties could be very lucrative for landlords, especially if there's high demand for rental properties. Detroit is a market that's experiencing an increase in rental properties even though appreciation is practically nothing in most areas.