In older urban areas in the US (particularly NYC), you often see co-op buildings. In a co-op, you buy shares in a corporation that owns the building and get a p

In older urban areas in the US (particularly NYC), you often see co-op buildings. In a co-op, you buy shares in a corporation that owns the building and get a proprietary lease entitling you to use of a certain amount of space, while in a condo you are buying the deed to the individual apartment you own. On paper they're different means to the same end. In practice, condos typically have much less stringent approval requirements - board approvals, background checks, character references, and providing a summary of your complete financial situation beyond the details of how you'll be paying for the apartment are normal in a coop purchase process. The result of this is co-ops tend to have lower turnover and stricter rules overall - in addition to often being cheaper. They also have their problems, because the approvals process can be a mechanism for discrimination against protected classes. But the general perception is that co-ops are harder to get into, and harder to get out of, so the residents (at least in theory) tend to be long term and community minded. In most states, condo boards don't get the right to be selective, and must accept the first applicant who is minimally qualified. Condos tend to give more power to the individual owner, coops tend to give more power to the coop board. I can't speak to how other parts of the world handle this problem, but even in the US there is at least one other common model.