3 ms·
The problem is that tearing it down would be a huge embarrassment to everyone involved, especially if it was closed due to safety. Leaving it SBNO indefinitely
by a_shovel 3y ago
The problem is that tearing it down would be a huge embarrassment to everyone involved, especially if it was closed due to safety. Leaving it SBNO indefinitely makes it an eyesore, but lets them avoid assigning blame like a demolition would force them to.
- zucked 3y agoI don't quite understand, though - is there a certain length it needs to exist before it can be torn down without judgement? The article mentions the Dubai Pearl, which broke ground in the early oughts finally being demolished. Admittedly, I don't know as much about the individual emirates as I could, but Dubai seems like the most reckless of the bunch. The Palm, the (World) Islands, it seems like they're just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks. I wouldn't touch anything there with a ten foot pole, investment-wise.
- sandworm101 3y ago>> certain length it needs to exist before it can be torn down without judgement? It comes down for scrap the day after the last creditor gives up trying to get a return on their investment. So long as a foreign investor is holding onto their note, unwilling to sell for pennies on the dollar, the project will remain in perpetual limbo. But eventually all the property rights will be bought back by whatever prince started the cycle. Then it can be pulled down and a new eyesore commissioned.