My takeaway from dealing with a condo HOA is that condos shouldn't legally exist, because people owning fractional buildings is doomed to result in structural collapse. Elected residents aren't qualified to make decisions about long-term maintenance which becomes more severe and expensive over time, and they have perverse incentives to avoid spending money. Faced with a substantial enough cost, board members can opt to hide problems while they try to sell their own stake in the building.
"People owning fractional buildings" has existed for almost 150 years, at what point should we start to see NYC buildings collapsing due to structural collapse?
This is false. The first condominium in the continental US was built in 1960, the entire scheme is only 63 years old. There's some older buildings that have been converted, sure, but the legal concept isn't that old.
And buildings start needing more significant structural work after forty or fifty years. Which is to say, yes, I expect many more condos to collapse over the next couple decades.
> The first condominium in the continental US was built in 1960, the entire scheme is only 63 years old.
This is correct in the sense that it is technically correct (for residential dwellings; commercial condominiums have existed for almost a hundred years prior).
However, residential cooperatives (co-ops) have existed in the United States since the mid-1800s. These are functionally the same as a condominium with a slightly different legal structure. But the end result is identical: multiple owners jointly managing a building in which they all own a stake.
I mean, FWIW, the issue primarily relates solely with residential dwellings: Businesses generally have a better grasp on risk factors. Also, many residential cooperatives, to my knowledge, refer largely to house-sized structures, especially... in the mid-1800s. It's much more affordable to manage repairs for less floors and traditional wood frame construction.
It's also plausible the legal structure of a condominium itself is the problem that leads to, well, largely incompetent management.
Obviously I'm not sure landlords are a winning solution for anyone either. But particularly for large structures, I would prefer actual public/government management over a quasi-government entity comprised of self-centered residents.
Given the extremely similar structure in operation (residents are elected to the board, control maintenance fees, etc) and that insurance companies consider them the same for insuring purposes, what makes condos significantly worse than co-ops (which have been around for ~150 years)?
Technically a condo owner has fee simple (i.e. absolute) ownership of the airspace in their unit and tenancy in common (i.e. shared) with the other owners for the walls, floors and common areas.
I guess what you're arguing here is that groups of people shouldn't be able to own real property collectively, which would undermine a lot of the legal infrastructure that underpins business and society today; not just condos.
For example, what if one's parents die and probate leaves the family house to the adult children (who are obviously not married to each other), how would they take title?
The idea I can own my airspace, but be entirely dependent on some other idiots with no qualifications to make key decisions that determine if the floor, walls, and ceiling continue to remain stable and surrounding my property is problematic. Surfside will not be the last large condo to collapse this decade.
The legal structure makes some sense but the accountability is a joke. Structural safety should be handled at a more reputable level.
Also the definitions between your property and the common elements is... unclear in many cases, at best, and somewhat predatory in design at worst.
That's being said, $&@# AirBnB.