We know that reinforced-concrete construction is very sturdy and long lasting - which is not always a good thing. A later decision to replace such a building faces very expensive demolition costs, compared to wood-framed construction.
The economics of that situation sometimes means that concrete buildings survive with very dated aesthetics that are, at the same time, not visually appealing. The County Governmental Center is an oft-cited example in Santa Cruz - few people apart from architectural historians see much value in preserving its "brutalist" architecture.
An opposing example is the Palomar Hotel. Architect William Henry Weeks was an early believer in reinforced concrete, and the all-concrete 1928 Palomar vindicated him by surviving the 1989 earthquake with hardly a crack.
Entirely wood-framed buildings of more than four floors, on the other hand, are rarely seen. The 3-story mixed-use building at 525 Cedar Street is a recent example of the usual height limits imposed on all-wood construction. Looking around, I can't think of a single example of an all-wood building that's taller than four stories. Today's mass-timber construction methods can go higher, but we don't yet have any of those in Santa Cruz.
Looking into the future of today's hybrid concrete/wood buildings, a question that comes to mind is: how long will the wood parts of them last? It could be that, at some future date, the existing wood framing will simply be replaced with new wood framing, while the concrete lower levels live on.
