The Urban Exploring Debate

[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.

[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.

[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.