In the lifetime of an apartment complex (single-storey, low-rise, high-rise, whatever) I presume there comes a time when the building reaches an age where demolition is the only practical alternative. Perhaps this is because the features of the apartment become too antiquated, maintenance costs are getting too high, the place has become a slum, or whatever.
I say "I presume" because this seems to be the ordinary course of events for commercial buildings.
One would assume that people still own these apartments so what would happen in a situation like this? Because we are talking Strata Title, what specific rights does an owner have or not have in regards to this eventuality?
I mean, the thing that has always bothered me with apartments is that LAND has the value, not the dwelling (well, initially, it does), and with an apartment you essentially own some walls and the volume of air it contains. Do you "own" a proportion of the land?
If you don't own the land, or only a very small percentage of it, shouldn't this suggest that $ growth for apartments should be less than for houses, because there is not the land underpinning the investment?
I say "I presume" because this seems to be the ordinary course of events for commercial buildings.
One would assume that people still own these apartments so what would happen in a situation like this? Because we are talking Strata Title, what specific rights does an owner have or not have in regards to this eventuality?
I mean, the thing that has always bothered me with apartments is that LAND has the value, not the dwelling (well, initially, it does), and with an apartment you essentially own some walls and the volume of air it contains. Do you "own" a proportion of the land?
If you don't own the land, or only a very small percentage of it, shouldn't this suggest that $ growth for apartments should be less than for houses, because there is not the land underpinning the investment?