

How to disassemble a skyscraper but not its neighborhood? - psadauskas
http://improbable.com/2011/08/03/how-to-disassemble-a-skyscraper-but-not-its-neighborhood/

======
burgerbrain
Why would they spend money tearing it down if they.. ran out of money? Surely
if they default on their loans the buildings would be sold to a new owner...?

~~~
psadauskas
Its not the people that ran out of money that would have to tear it down; it
would be the bank, or whoever made the loan, that would have to tear it down.

I think thats part of the question, too. If you made a huge building but ran
out of money and had to close it, who would be responsible for the building,
and who would have to pay to have it torn down?

~~~
burgerbrain
Why would the bank spend more money to tear it down instead of trying to make
some of their money back by selling it? That's what banks try to do with other
buildings.

~~~
rxcfc
I think you are missing the point. The question is what would one do if the
building fell into disrepair and no one wanted to pay to maintain it. See
Detroit for an example of this happening to houses.

~~~
burgerbrain
Realisticly? _If_ it were to be knocked down, I imagine the state might just
eminent domain it and the surrounding area and dynamite it. I find this
outcome unlikely though since nobody will want to spend the money on it.

Here is a more likely outcome: [http://www.gadling.com/2011/03/08/abandoned-
caracas-skyscrap...](http://www.gadling.com/2011/03/08/abandoned-caracas-
skyscraper-is-home-to-2-500-squatters/)

Note the case of the Ryugyong Hotel, demonstrating that such buildings can be
abandoned for _long_ amounts of time without anything needing to be done to
them.

