|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Home Living||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I redirected "Condominium law" to "Condominium (housing)". The former appears to be an old copy of the latter. The latter is more complete and appears to contain everything the former did excepting an off site link presenting in a non-NPOV way. Alan De Smet 18:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Might consider adding a section on cultural connotations that condominiums have picked up over the years, esp. with regard to construction quality, gentrification, etc. Paytonc 00:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Condominium you'll see that all the linking pages want Condominium (housing) and none want Condominium (international law), and as the latter article points out, "few [international condominiums] have existed in practice". So it makes sense for the housing law article to be at Condominium with a note at the top pointing to Condominium (international law). Gdr 23:22, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
- support Good example of a justifiable move, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not appropriate for primary topic disambiguation. -- Naive cynic 19:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Clear case for PTD. ADH (t&m) 19:26, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Makes sense. —Mike 04:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Solipsist 10:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Sean Curtin 05:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Neutralitytalk 21:16, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The broad topic is "Apartment Ownership" and condominium, strata title, commonhold, sectional title etc. are all names for systems that allow registerable real rights in parts of buildings.
The UK now has commonhold, after the recent Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Act (though I don't know if it's come into force yet)--some mention of this might be appropriate... 18.104.22.168 17:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
UK commonhold is a distinct system from the Australian/CanadianScottish legal equivalents of Strata Title/Condominium/Law of Tenement. It was brought into force in 2004 ollowing the 2002 Act mentioned above. While articles could be merged in a 'Common Ownership Schemes' type article, to include commonhold within a condominuium article would be inaccurate and counter-productive due to the marked differences beween the schemes.Craigmatthewharrisapll (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Outside North America
More should be written about condominiums outside North America. What about Europe and Asia? --Kalmia 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The condominium is very common in Spain. Much like in most european cities, housings are in the form of apartments (flats). However, in Spain is more common to own (or try to own) your housing than to rent it. There is a Ley de la Propiedad Horizontal, from the times of Franco's regime, and not very ammended as I recall, which regulates which parts and services of a building are property of the Comunidad de propietarios (Community of Owners), how the costs of maintenance are distributed, rights, obligations, etc. The community has a president (with a term of one or two years) which is nominated from the owners using some round robin system, with some exceptions. The administration of the community is usually carried out by a professional administrator. This administrator usually owns a company which can provide concierges, porters, maintenance, etc. The fact is that the most common way of owning a flat in Spain is much like a condominium. There is flats renting, of course, but usually this is provided by condominium owners who rent their flats, not by the owner of the building. In recent years a trend towards professional renting (like in the rest of Europe) is developing, with companies owning the buildings and renting the flats.--Mcovas (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I added information about housing cooperatives in the Sweden section from the same source (SCB). Including only that six condos were built in 2009 makes it look like everyone lives in rental apartments which is not at all true. Condos were generally illegal to prevent speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
In England and Wales, the creation of commonhold tenure by statute in 2004 was an attempt to codify and regularise schemes that had become widespread over a number of decades, schemes devised to meet a growing demand because of the expense of individual houses on individual plots. Commonholds have not proved popular simply because of their novelty.
Under English property law, derived from the feudal system, the crown owns the land itself, but individual owners hold an "estate in land", an abstract entity which is extremely flexible, presenting no theoretical problem to division vertically, horizontally or in any other direction. The owner of an estate that has not been divided horizontally is presumed to own it from the sky to the depths - usque ad coelem et ad inferos. The usual estates nowadays are freehold and leasehold, although there have been others. Copyhold, administered by the Lord of the Manor, was abolished as recently as 1925 and converted into freeholds.
The practical problem in English Law is that positive obligations cannot generally be enforced against a freehold title. Thus blocks of individually-owned apartments or "flats" are created by the granting of long leases, which are extremely variable in content and suitability. It is virtually impossible to create communal obligations and rights simply by leases, and so the normal method is to vest the freehold in a specially formed corporation of which, in the best arrangements, the individual leaseholders become members. The quality of schemes is maintained by the refusal of mortgage lenders to advance money unless they meet their legal requirements. Failure to comply makes the property virtually unmarketable.
Thus in England and Wales the concept of a condominium is not the creation of statute but an application of centuries-old general propery law to which commonhold tenure has only recently been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Continuinganalysis (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I changed the [[Development]] link, which is linked to a Disambiguation page, to [[Subdivision (land)|Development]]; it was changed back to [[Development]] and ultimately deleted altogether. Perhaps the Gated community link would be better? Please don't revert an edited link back to a disambiguation page, though; if nothing else fits, just leave it as unlinked. Thanks.—Chidom talk 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
With the current boom in Alberta due to oil sands development and very low unemployment rate, more information about Alberta should be added.--126.96.36.199 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Alberta And Canadian Condominiums
Under references I added a link to the Alberta legislation governing condominium property.
I kind of, sort of, agree with the person who suggested expanding discussion of condominium ownership in Canada to include Alberta as well as Ontario. I think this needs to go much, much farther. I'm sure there are a lot of condominiums in British Columbia (I keep getting brochures for condo projects in BC stuffed in my Alberta mail box), and there are probably condominiums in every province in Canada. And the legislation covering condominiums is provincial.
At the same time, while condos are provincially regulated, I expect there is a lot in common from one province to another. So the Canada - Ontario section could be replaced with a single section for Canada that covers the general Canadian picture, with maybe major key differences among the provinces being pointed out.
188.8.131.52 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly the discussion is under the discussion heading. Would it make more sense to remove the heading altogether or come up with a more encyclopedic title (such as Overview or something similar)? Strandist 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Legal disclaimer needed?
Free standing condo
Disruptive anon IP
The anon IP 184.108.40.206 has made three reverts so far that have removed properly cited, reliable-source content, and initially re-added an uncited, original-research legal analysis. Two editors including myself have reverted his non-constructive edits. I have asked him both in edit summaries and on his talk page to bring his concerns to this talk page, but he is uncommunicative. One more revert and he will have violated WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum: Now three editors, including User:Sumone10154 have reverted him. Additionally, Sumone10154 has placed a warning on the IP's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed the indicated French terminology from "co-propriété divisée", which is inaccurate, to "copropriété divise", as it appears in the Code civil du Québec (i.e. article 1038)and as it is referred to by Québec jurists. There is no hyphen, and the adjective is "divise", not "divisée". 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is terrible. It varies between defining 'condo" as a tenancy type, but spends almost the entire article talking about it as a housing type. Condominium is an ownership structure and has a strict legal definition. Not only is it prevalent in housing, but commercial and industrial structures are also structured as condominiums.
The emphasis on housing only reinforces common misconception and ignorance about what a condominium is actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I'd also point to user70245's explanation at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26762/difference-between-condo-and-apartment ghouston (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, 22.214.171.124. Not only is it prevalent in housing, but commercial and industrial structures are also structured as condominiums
- Yes, I agree, however in 2011 the consensus at wikipedia was, as I understand it, that condominiums that are not residential cannot be categorized on Wikipedia. For more see this. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Record of Potential RS
These are some articles I looked that might be of value for this article, especially with regard to condominiums in the U.S.:
-  Claims condominiums date back to
- Hebrew document of 434 BCE
- Roman Empire
- Napoleonic Code
- then South America
- Brazil 1928 -- supposedly first legislation (I guess the Napoleonic Code is not considered "legislation"?)
- Puerto Rico 1951 (which I believe comports with our article)
- http://www.condopedia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Condo_History (not RS, but may have information worth researching)
- NYT article about Rembrandt Bldg that is "cooperative" housing, which was mentioned in the article immediately above.
- St. John's Law Review article 1963 -- only first page shows.
- Siller v. Hartz Mountain Assocs., 93 N.J. 370, 375 n.4, 461 A.2d 568, 570 (1983):
- the history of condominiums has been traced back to ancient Rome, Note, "Land Without Earth -- Condominium," 15 U.Fla.L.Rev. 203, 205 (1962), though this has been disputed, Berger, "Condominium: Shelter on a Statutory Foundation," 63 Colum.L.Rev. 987, 987 n. 5 (1963). Others contend that the concept can be traced back to the ancient Hebrews in the Fifth Century B.C., Kerr, "Condominium -- Statutory Implementation," 38 St. Johns L.Rev. 1, 3 (1963); Note, "The FHA Condominium," 31 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 1014, 1015 (1963). There is recognition of the concept in common law. Coke on Littleton, quoted in Ball, "Division in Horizontal Strata of the Landscape Above the Surface," 39 Yale L.J. 616, 621 (1930).
The article says In 1960, the first condominium in the Continental United States was built in Salt Lake City, Utah. ...