[supernova87a]

I can see how when owning a building in a place like that, you might be tempted to say, "not even going to dig, don't want to know what we might find under there" that will cause your property to completely change value and control.

I wonder who takes the loss, in case suddenly your building can no longer be developed and is essentially state property (although owned by you).

[4ndrewl]

It's still your property. Through the "polluter pays" principle you (the developer) may have to pay for the archaeological dig (which is, by it's nature destructive).

In many cases if the archaeological finds are mobile (eg coins, shields etc) you may be compensated for them by a government fund.

But digging down in that part of London you're always going to hit something Tudor, Medieval, Saxon or Roman. It would be priced in as part of the development.

[cgcrob]

I’m sure the property development mega corporation will get over it.

[vkou]

If we believe in markets, we would have to believe that the risk is priced into the cost of the property, much like the risk of a lemon is priced into the cost of a used car.

[userbinator]

In another few hundred years, I wonder if people will discover bits and pieces of the buildings today and repeat the same cycle.

[lmz]

I wonder if you can get insurance for that. Also, how much worse must this be in Rome?