Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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.

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...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com