> if however it is forbidden everywhere else it would create an unfair advantage.
Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real?
> Also I immagine that unnecessary use of reinforced concrete makes up well under 1% of its global use
That's the problem I think, you are giving way to much credit to your imagination.
> for most use-cases [reinforced concrete is used] because it gives freedom to architects to make buildings that look more appealing: it's a fashion driven disaster.
and yet you say I am giving too much credit to my imagination
> Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real?
Well then you seem to be saying nothing. You suggested alternative materials for reinforced concrete that really would not work in the real world. Even stone buildings use reinforcement to be able to better withstand earthquakes. Read about the Lisbon earthquake to get a feel for the sort of things "concrete cancer" can prevent.
I'm ending this exchange with a simple Quora question on this topic:
Nobody is talking about forbidding anything, and you can't be serious when arguing that living in a seismic area would be an unfair advantage, I mean for real?
> Also I immagine that unnecessary use of reinforced concrete makes up well under 1% of its global use
That's the problem I think, you are giving way to much credit to your imagination.