The Urban Exploring Debate

[ruxy17]

Ok so we've all seen those videos of idiot kids who go into the Packard or MCS or one of the hundreds of other abandoned and trashed buildings in Detroit. These kids make me want to scream. I hate what they're doing, using my backyard as their playground and getting their kicks from knocking over beautiful pieces of Detroit history. I've read many threads on this forum about such "evil" urban explorers and how deplorable their actions are.

A conversation I had with my 20 year old brother the other day went something like this:
him - me and some friends are gonna check out the packard, wanna come?
me - what? no. don't do that.
him - why not?
me - because kids who do that are [[[[[[[[[s.
him - why? i don't plan to ruin anything, i plan to treat it the same way i treat a state park. i just want to see. i just want to take pictures. i just want to be in one of those giant rooms and picture what it was like when the assembly lines were humming.

Then we went off into "but its dangerous," followed with a very sarcastic "ohhh gee thanks, mom..."

I guess I'm just wanted to get people's takes on what is appropriate urban exploring, and what isn't. Is it just 100% not OK? or sometimes?

For example, the thought of the urban archaeological sites that sit [[half-assedly) fenced off just waiting for a young anthropologist like myself to explore and catalog and respect and put what is found in the Wayne State Anthropology Museum are sometimes too exciting for me to bear! But that's stealing, right? But I'd be respectful of the history and trying to save it, not trash it or demolish it or pee on it. But does that make it ok?

Another example: some friends of mine took some floor panels from the Packard Plant and are refinishing some floors with it. The floors are in a place that [[without getting into too much detail, don't want to get anyone into trouble...) will serve as a positive addition to Detroit, a communal space that will be a headquarters for local artists and initiatives like anti-littering campaigns. They've explained to me that these beautiful floor panels are sitting under inches of dust and trash and in this new place they'll be seen and admired. Basically its stealing in the name of making Detroit a better place [[in their eyes).

I just wanted to see what people think. Is there a "grey area?" or is it black and white, exploring is bad and that's that?

Found this cartoon, thought it'd fit here:

[ghettopalmetto]

My take, from the perspective of a structural engineer, is that "urban exploring" is dangerous. The average person doesn't know whether something is structurally unsound, whether a portion of floor has deteriorated, or a structural member is in danger of failure. As cool as it might be to check out a spooky old building, it won't be very cool if you fall through the floor, or if a wall, floor, or entire building comes crashing down on you.

[Gsgeorge]

Urban exploring is a double-edged sword. As a photographer & urban explorer myself, I am always conflicted by the benefits & pitfalls of the "sport": on one side, the positive effects of UE are raising awareness about these structures; learning about our history; promoting preservation by showing people the decay and beauty of these structures, and pointing out that they need to be saved or reused; becoming interested in architecture & engineering; creating something out of nothing; making art & expressing yourself through photography or painting, audio recording, whatever floats your boat; recreational benefits [[I see it the same as hiking or climbing). Then the other side, the side that just promotes trespassing and vandalism; getting other people interested in it that may have no business in these structures, who just see an opportunity to steal stuff or break things; perpetuating a culture of disrespect for personal and private property; and of course encountering the countless dangers involved like collapsing floors & walls, dangerous dust or chemicals left behind, pigeon feces, dangerous strangers & scrappers. I like to think that I am usually on the good side of urban exploring, the side that promotes awareness, historical interest, and art. But I am guilty myself of nabbing a cool artifact or object from these sites, or scrawling my name [[small) on the roof of a prominent abandoned skyscraper, or occaisionally breaking a glass bottle or window pane deep in the recesses of the Packard, a practically irresistable action. But I think there are a few distinctions. I never enter a building if I have to "break in" by removing boards, knocking down a door or window, etc. I ONLY go into structures that are open. And I try to "salvage" artifacts rather than steal them. Sure, the difference is nil in court. But I'd rather see a nice old book taken to a caring home than rot away in an abandoned building or get soaked with rainwater on a basement floor.

Here is a story that highlights the two-sided nature of UE. A close friend and I entered a rather prominent downtown skyscraper. It was our greatest UE achievement. We got some amazing photographs, and my love for the building increased tenfold by being able to see all of its glorious details up close. I was committed to making the preservation of this tower a priority during my time in Detroit. A few days later, my friend posted online a rather impressive photograph from this trip that got a lot of hits and revealed to the online communities that this particular building was open. I thought that perhaps this was not the best move, that waiting a bit after the buiding was resealed would have been the best way to share this admittedly amazing photo. And sure enough, the very next day, I drove by the building only to find a group of 8 or 10 "suburban emo kids" wearing converse allstars and digital cameras dangling from their wrists wrenching on the doors of this building trying to get in. And I suddenly felt very guilty for having ever entered this place to begin with. I thought of all the damage they would do by entering the building, and then they'd tell their friends and their friends and so on. And sooner or later we'd have another MCS on our hands. But at the same moment I thought to myself, well, perhaps these kids would have otherwise never come downtown, or never known anything or cared anything about this building before. So, in a way, did my friend and I raise awareness about the preservation of this structure? Or did we only contribute to its quick decay as a result of our photography & exploration? I think the answer is not clear, and perhaps somewhere in-between. But in the mean time I think that if the buildings are open, people will explore them. And as lover of history & architecutre & photography, I will be among them. I would never hold a building owner responsible for an injury or accident sustained on my behalf while exploring, and would be happy to pay any fines if caught. I understand the risks, but unfortunately many people don't. Detroit is a unique place in that any old Joe can see these American Ruins up close and personal. In other cities, the presence of enforcement, security, or the looming prospect of heavy fines prevents widespread UE and limits it to only the most hardcore individuals.

So the questions remain... I think Detroit should do more to prevent UE. I think these buildings should be sealed & there should be heavier public fines for trespassing. But I also think the city should come down on building owners who do nothing about gaping holes in their buildings or structures that are collapsing into the street. This would do a lot to prevent careless exploration. And in the mean time, if the buildings are open, people will explore them.

[Lonyo exit]

You say: "But at the same moment I thought to myself, well, perhaps these kids would have otherwise never come downtown, or never known anything or cared anything about this building before. So, in a way, did my friend and I raise awareness about the preservation of this structure"

Who the hell cares if they ever heard of this building? What gain is there for the city if some dumb kid now knows a building is open? Awareness isn't a form of currency - who wasn't aware, for example, of the impending doom of Tiger Stadium. All the awareness in the world didn't do a thing to save it. It's a conceit to think that posting pictures of buildings does anything to save them. It's decay porn, pure and simple.

Money talks, bullshit walks. Money saves buildings, not some dumb emo kid tugging on a doorway, looking to be the umpteenth kid with a pic of the inside of a Detroit skyscraper.

[DocTerry]

Boy, there's a lot of territory in this one and open to all the "slippery slope" discussions. That said, I have to agree - if they are open, people will explore. Also agreed - you should not be able to sue if you get hurt doing so after breaking in to a building. Agreed owners should be held more responsible. To me its kind of like an "attractive nuisance", and if its left open, the owner should bear some responsibility for injury. All that said, yes, it is kind of like archaeology - artifacts should be left where they are. Whether a building is open or not, no one has a right to remove anything from it that does not belong to them.

[Canute]

Here is a story that highlights the two-sided nature of UE. A close friend and I entered a rather prominent downtown skyscraper. It was our greatest UE achievement. We got some amazing photographs, and my love for the building increased tenfold by being able to see all of its glorious details up close. I was committed to making the preservation of this tower a priority during my time in Detroit. A few days later, my friend posted online a rather impressive photograph from this trip that got a lot of hits and revealed to the online communities that this particular building was open. I thought that perhaps this was not the best move, that waiting a bit after the buiding was resealed would have been the best way to share this admittedly amazing photo. And sure enough, the very next day, I drove by the building only to find a group of 8 or 10 "suburban emo kids" wearing converse allstars and digital cameras dangling from their wrists wrenching on the doors of this building trying to get in. And I suddenly felt very guilty for having ever entered this place to begin with.

There is a difference between actual "urban exploring" and posting photos publicly on the internet to pound your chest and show off and attract morons to the building in question. Your friend made a bad decision by posting that photograph. If he can't enjoy exploring without internet backslapping as a goal, he is just going to keep repeating that mistake, and he should do us all a favor and find a new hobby.

[Stosh]

You say: "But at the same moment I thought to myself, well, perhaps these kids would have otherwise never come downtown, or never known anything or cared anything about this building before. So, in a way, did my friend and I raise awareness about the preservation of this structure"

Who the hell cares if they ever heard of this building? What gain is there for the city if some dumb kid now knows a building is open? Awareness isn't a form of currency - who wasn't aware, for example, of the impending doom of Tiger Stadium. All the awareness in the world didn't do a thing to save it. It's a conceit to think that posting pictures of buildings does anything to save them. It's decay porn, pure and simple.

Money talks, bullshit walks. Money saves buildings, not some dumb emo kid tugging on a doorway, looking to be the umpteenth kid with a pic of the inside of a Detroit skyscraper.

You are spot on in your assessment of this situation. It's all a big joke, really. Preservation would be akin to leaving it freaking alone. By entering it and then publicly outing it's exposed state, AND posting pictures, invites the same jokers that showed up there. Imititation.

And I agree that this doesn't promote preservation one bit. People in the preservation community, I'm sure, are aware of the existence of every building downtown.

If I were a developer, I'd sure flock down to a building that's been gone over by vandals, taggers, scrappers, and the "urban explorerz". I'd run as fast as I can toward anything resembling a complete building, It's hard to renovate a gutted shell.

[dexterferry]

it may be worth noting that "detrotblogger john" of the Detroit Blog and Metro Times fame started as a guy who "posted photos publicly on the internet to pound [his] chest and show off and attract morons to the building in question." as much as this community has lionized him for his recent work, John started his blog to document his drunken adventures and urban explorations. go read his archives. he'd never write a story about breaking into the book tower these days, but what he does today is, I think, a direct reflection of what he learned doing that: the city is actually its people, not its abandoned buildings.

[Gsgeorge]

it may be worth noting that "detrotblogger john" of the Detroit Blog and Metro Times fame started as a guy who "posted photos publicly on the internet to pound [his] chest and show off and attract morons to the building in question." as much as this community has lionized him for his recent work, John started his blog to document his drunken adventures and urban explorations. go read his archives. he'd never write a story about breaking into the book tower these days, but what he does today is, I think, a direct reflection of what he learned doing that: the city is actually its people, not its abandoned buildings.

A great point. And I think I, too, have learned this, as my photography has shifted from abandoned buildings to a series of Detroit portraits of its citizens & prominent figures. The ruins serve as an introduction to the city, but if you dig a little deeper you'll find it is much more than abandoned rooms & decaying auto factories. The real soul of this city are its people, their passions, and their businesses and organizations.

[Patrick]

Money talks, bullshit walks. Money saves buildings, not some dumb emo kid tugging on a doorway, looking to be the umpteenth kid with a pic of the inside of a Detroit skyscraper.

One of the best lines ever in my nearly 10 years on D-Yes.

[Hypestyles]

more urban exploring is necessary to expose the problems of urban blight.. shame the public officials into doing something about it.. most of the property owners don't care..

[Gsgeorge]

You are spot on in your assessment of this situation. It's all a big joke, really. Preservation would be akin to leaving it freaking alone. By entering it and then publicly outing it's exposed state, AND posting pictures, invites the same jokers that showed up there. Imititation.

And I agree that this doesn't promote preservation one bit. People in the preservation community, I'm sure, are aware of the existence of every building downtown.

I don't think awareness should be underestimated. People in the preservation community are not always the ones that are influential in saving a building. Oftentimes it takes a big push on the part of the regular public to save a building. Just look at how George Jackson reacts to the threats and cries of the dozen or so top dogs in Preservation Wayne. But the second a petition is signed by scores of regular Detroiters to save the Lafayette Building, the mayor reconsiders. I'm speaking of Cockrel, but that was a powerful example. Awareness among the regular public is what really caused the stay of demolition, not the complaints of PW, however legitimate and passionate they were.

[Lonyo exit]

The Lafayette Building is toast. Cockrel gave a brief stay of execution so he couldn't be accused of ignoring the pleas of preservationists, who were told to come up with a viable way to preserve it, i.e. come up with the cash and a plan.

As usual, that didn't happen, and so it's doomed. So in the end, all they did was delay the inevitable, as they did with Tiger Stadium, the Statler, etc.

The buildings that get saved - the Book Cadillac and the Fort Shelby, for example - were spared because someone put up the money to rehab them. Pure and simple.

[PSewick]

Has anyone considered arranging visits to these buildings with the property owners' permission? That way it wouldn't be trespassing.

The same thing goes for stealing floor panels--if you offered to buy them from the building's owner, it wouldn't be theft. Which it is.

[Islandman]

Liability. No owner would agree to that.

[jackie5275]

My take, from the perspective of a structural engineer, is that "urban exploring" is dangerous. The average person doesn't know whether something is structurally unsound, whether a portion of floor has deteriorated, or a structural member is in danger of failure. As cool as it might be to check out a spooky old building, it won't be very cool if you fall through the floor, or if a wall, floor, or entire building comes crashing down on you.

I have to agree with gp here on this one. I used to work by old Eloise before all the unused building were torn down. The biggest one & last to be torn down, N-Bldg, had been really trashed by whoever doing exploring over the years. I remember walking in the back of it going past where the kitchen was located and looking thru the broken out windows at huge stove vents hanging from the kitchen just waiting to crash down on someone. There was also running water coming from somewhere in there and live electrical wires. Wouldn't just love to be the one who discovered where they met?

[Bearinabox]

it may be worth noting that "detrotblogger john" of the Detroit Blog and Metro Times fame started as a guy who "posted photos publicly on the internet to pound [his] chest and show off and attract morons to the building in question." as much as this community has lionized him for his recent work, John started his blog to document his drunken adventures and urban explorations. go read his archives. he'd never write a story about breaking into the book tower these days, but what he does today is, I think, a direct reflection of what he learned doing that: the city is actually its people, not its abandoned buildings.

Over time, John started doing more research about the buildings he broke into, and his posts about them became very interesting and informative. If anything, they quelled any desire I might have had to break into those buildings and see them for myself. He made a point of not revealing how he got into the buildings, and not destroying anything he found there. I don't have a problem with that kind of exploring.

[Gistok]

I don't think awareness should be underestimated. People in the preservation community are not always the ones that are influential in saving a building. Oftentimes it takes a big push on the part of the regular public to save a building. Just look at how George Jackson reacts to the threats and cries of the dozen or so top dogs in Preservation Wayne. But the second a petition is signed by scores of regular Detroiters to save the Lafayette Building, the mayor reconsiders. I'm speaking of Cockrel, but that was a powerful example. Awareness among the regular public is what really caused the stay of demolition, not the complaints of PW, however legitimate and passionate they were.

Gsgeorge, I think you're putting the proverbial cart in front of the horse...

Who do you think provides awareness of many of the buildings that are in danger? Who do you think provides insight and public tours of many of the areas that have neighboring buildings that are in danger? Who do you think provided the "Loft Development Workshops" that got many of the buildings [[especially along lower Woodward) redeveloped into liveable spaces?

Preservation Wayne, Cityscape, DAADS [[Detroit Area Art Deco Society) and a host of other organizations provide much of the gruntwork for making things happen, or at least raising the awareness of buildings in trouble.

This is augmented by DYES and other online sites that spreads the word about buildings in danger of demolition.

Urban explorers often can help this cause in an online sense. But they already are breaking the law [[by trespassing), and are therefore often indifferent to respecting the surviving fabric of a building [[as can be seen by that chair that was thrown from the top of the David Whitney Building light well and is stuck in the lobby ceiling skylight). So they may "enlighten" some online folks who are uninformed about some buildings current condition.... but otherwise... "they are preaching to the choir.."

[Gsgeorge]

Preservation Wayne, Cityscape, DAADS [[Detroit Area Art Deco Society) and a host of other organizations provide much of the gruntwork for making things happen, or at least raising the awareness of buildings in trouble.

This is augmented by DYES and other online sites that spreads the word about buildings in danger of demolition.

Urban explorers often can help this cause in an online sense. But they can often [[as can be seen by that chair that was thrown from the top of the David Whitney Building light well and is stuck in the lobby ceiling skylight)... do more harm than good.

Of course. I am not trying to discredit the efforts of PW & other preservation-minded orgs in the city. But one should not underestimate the power of the images of these buildings, the so-called "decay porn" that really brings to the fore the condition of these places. What is more powerful, a press release from PW saying a certain building is in danger? Or images of the shameful decay of these buildings' impressive architecture & ornamentation?

And who says the guy/girl who threw the chair was an urban explorer? These types of people give real urban explorers a bad name. This guy had nothing to do with Urban Exploration and everything to do with straight up Vandalism.

[Gistok]

Of course. I am not trying to discredit the efforts of PW & other preservation-minded orgs in the city. But one should not underestimate the power of the images of these buildings, the so-called "decay porn" that really brings to the fore the condition of these places. What is more powerful, a press release from PW saying a certain building is in danger? Or images of the shameful decay of these buildings' impressive architecture & ornamentation?

And who says the guy/girl who threw the chair was an urban explorer? These types of people give real urban explorers a bad name. This guy had nothing to do with Urban Exploration and everything to do with straight up Vandalism.

Gsgeorge... the line between a "respectful" urban explorer and one engaged in real vandalism is often blurred. Scrappers often won't bother with doing stuff for kicks, but are after monetary rewards, while urban explorers are more into the sheer thrill of it... and throwing a chair falls into that category.

[Blarf]

My take, from the perspective of a structural engineer, is that "urban exploring" is dangerous. The average person doesn't know whether something is structurally unsound, whether a portion of floor has deteriorated, or a structural member is in danger of failure. As cool as it might be to check out a spooky old building, it won't be very cool if you fall through the floor, or if a wall, floor, or entire building comes crashing down on you.

That's what makes it funner.

[Gsgeorge]

Gsgeorge... the line between a "respectful" urban explorer and one engaged in real vandalism is often blurred. Scrappers often won't bother with doing stuff for kicks, but are after monetary rewards, while urban explorers are more into the sheer thrill of it... and throwing a chair falls into that category.

I respectfully disagree. The thrill of urban exploring has nothing to do with tossing chairs off roofs, vandalism, or endangering others. The thrill comes from entering the building without permission [[no one is arguing that this is not illegal), climbing through dangerous spaces, exploring off-limits areas of buildings, seeing the city from the rooftops, etc. Ask any 'real' urban explorer--they will agree that throwing stuff off the roof is stupid & pointless. Leave that to the teenagers who don't give a crap -- and those awful "Survival Crackas" who destroy buildings for the fun of it. They alone, along with scrappers, have been responsible for a lot of the damage to these buildings over the last six years.

A poster commented above that he 'agrees with' Detroitblogger John's urban exploration because he wrote informative things about the building and exposed the foolish actions of vandals. Detroitblogger John obviously didn't agree with vandals, and exposed their idiotic actions on his blog. But do you really think John's only intentions were to go into the buildings to expose the actions of the vandals and raise awareness? I doubt it. He also went for the thrill of respectful "hands-off" exploring. It's the same blurry line you speak of above. How can this kind of "informative" exploring be all well and good, and yet those seeking "thrills" are demonized? John -- and many of us who explore building -- went for both reasons. To raise awareness, yes, but also for the thrill of it. And while throwing a chair off a roof can be a "thrill" for the naive teen or uncaring vandal, it is an entirely different thrill to truly "explore" these places without damaging them.

[Trumpeteer]

And while throwing a chair off a roof can be a "thrill" for the naive teen or uncaring vandal, it is an entirely different thrill to truly "explore" these places without damaging them.

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge
"I like to think that I am usually on the good side of urban exploring, the side that promotes awareness, historical interest, and art. But I am guilty myself of nabbing a cool artifact or object from these sites, or scrawling my name [[small) on the roof of a prominent abandoned skyscraper, or occaisionally breaking a glass bottle or window pane deep in the recesses of the Packard, a practically irresistable action."

So which one is it? Just wondering

[Gsgeorge]

Originally Posted by Gsgeorge
"I like to think that I am usually on the good side of urban exploring, the side that promotes awareness, historical interest, and art. But I am guilty myself of nabbing a cool artifact or object from these sites, or scrawling my name [[small) on the roof of a prominent abandoned skyscraper, or occaisionally breaking a glass bottle or window pane deep in the recesses of the Packard, a practically irresistable action."

So which one is it? Just wondering

I said I was guilty of foolish actions myself. Not saying they were good things to do.

[Trumpeteer]

Like I said, just curious. Thanks for the honesty.