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

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?

> 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.

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)

Where do you live that this is the condo ownership model?

Generally, condo owners have an undivided interest in the land on which the property is built.