While there is housing crisis, houses are being demolished as a symbolic gesture. What can we learn?

In recent cases of houses which have been demolished where there were criminal cases that people would rather erase from history. One of a couple in Derbyshire, UK who set fire to their own home to set the husband's mistress up for arson but ended up killing all 6 of their children sleeping in the house at the time. The other is the Ohio, US abductor who had held women and a girl whom he had abducted captive inside of the house for a number of years.

Both cases are a demonstration of horrendous things human is capable of inflicting on others. People abhor at these events. In interviews with their respective neighbours and the general public, there seems to be a consensus that the properties deservedly need to be torn down. In view of housing shortage, however, could these houses be better used for something useful such as housing homeless people, or used as an office premises for charity? There will be an argument that the memories of the cruelty would remain with the properties. On the other hand, we know of buildings that have been kept despite the gruesome history behind them such as houses with association with the holocaust, combats during wars, prisons that have been converted into hotels (e.g. Malmaison, Oxford, Hotel Katajanokka, Helsinki, Jailhotel, Luzern).

In societies where people still sleep in the street because they have no job, cannot afford renting a place, let alone owning one, can we afford perfectly, structurally sound buildings being torn down while letting people sleep rough with no roof over their heads?