Japanese culture has different ideas than the West when it comes to preservation vs. rebuilding structures, which is ultimately rooted in the fact that it’s an island with typhoons and earthquakes, and thus architecture tended not to last long, historically at least.
This is also why you see so many articles online about buying cheap houses in rural Japan: because typically new owners will demolish old buildings like this rather than refurbish them in the way a building is in Paris or London.
My guess is that the Nagakin became a little too retro and run down, and the lack of this preservation culture meant that no one really wanted to live there. It would probably still exist and be in good condition had it been built in say, London - like The Barbican, for example.
This is also why you see so many articles online about buying cheap houses in rural Japan: because typically new owners will demolish old buildings like this rather than refurbish them in the way a building is in Paris or London.
My guess is that the Nagakin became a little too retro and run down, and the lack of this preservation culture meant that no one really wanted to live there. It would probably still exist and be in good condition had it been built in say, London - like The Barbican, for example.
An interesting article on the ephemeral idea: https://www.archdaily.com/1002972/the-eternal-ephemeral-arch...