[jdyer9]

Presumably the difference with a condo is that the condo owner has a fair vote in the buildings management (usually an HOA in the US) and enough votes can be used to destroy the building if it achieves high enough liability-to-value ratio. That does not exist for a timeshare, the timeshare owners can never band together to change the governance of the building

[twelve40]

That's a great observation. I've always wondered while biking past old apartment complexes in Mountain View being torn down: who foots the bill for the value destroyed, and who makes those decisions. If you owned one of those units, could you just get outvoted a lose a million-dollar condo like that?

[vkou]

> If you owned one of those units, could you just get outvoted a lose a million-dollar condo like that?

You'd have a share of the claim on the value of the land.

Presumably everyone voted to tear it down because the building costs more to maintain as-is, than to tear down and rebuild.

[bluGill]

My guess is the condo votes to sell the land to someone else, distribute the money to the condo owners and then dissolve. Generally the condo isn't worth a million dollars anymore though as the building is old. Or maybe it is worth a million but you were paid 1.1 million to get out as whatever replaces it is that much more valuable (if it really was worth a million I'd guess not, but the million dollar condos of 1950 are not worth nearly that much today but the land itself is worth a new million dollar condo.

It is also possible the condo voted to tear down the building and build new - if you owned the condo before you will have one again in 2 years, but you are required to live elsewhere in the mean time. (Million dollar condos in Iowa implies you can afford a second house/apartment, while in San Francisco it would not)