Okay so this is probably a dumb question, but I'm just curious. In order for something to be categorized as "urbex," does it have to be someplace abandoned/decaying/ruined/etc? Or can it also be places that are still occupied and the explorer just managed to trespass unnoticed? For example, I just went to a site that is not abandoned, but it took some fence-hopping and camera-dodging to get to the site... does that qualify as urbex? I would imagine it's also an arguable kind of definition so I'm curious.

Yeah that counts as urbex. Its just like how drains are considered urbex and most aren't abandoned

Generally exploring is classified as simply going where you're not allowed to go in places. There's a fair numbers of "types" if exploration. When you explore an active site it's often considered active infiltration. It's totally exploring and it's one of the most ballsy forms of exploring (depending on the location).

A good example of exploring something that is not abandoned/decaying/ruined is draining and tunnel exploring. It's definitely not sanctioned and depending on where you're going/what you're in you could get into big big trouble for it. Draining is one of my favorite types of exploring, and really if a drain is "abandoned" as it were...it could potentially be super danger and not something you should ever really do (gases in drains that aren't moving/active can be deadly). So active drains are the shit and I love going in those.

Let me clarify, though, that the more trouble you can get in doesn't make it a better explore of more legit or cooler. If you have permission to go into a derelict building...that's still exploring and completely acceptable. Some of the best explores I've been on were with permission.

"Qualifications" for exploring are up to interpretation and some things are cooler than others, and it's really not a black and white issue. That being said, walking into the "Employees Only" break room of your local Best Buy doesn't really count.

I personally think the typical association of "urbex" is abandoned places, but things like rooftopping and draining are activities that would count too. Going rooftopping in my hometown of Minneapolis was my first exposure to exploring of any kind really.

Posted by matt817k places that are still occupied and the explorer just managed to trespass unnoticed? For example, I just went to a site that is not abandoned, but it took some fence-hopping and camera-dodging to get to the site... does that qualify as urbex? I would imagine it's also an arguable kind of definition so I'm curious.

Don't say trespass... it's infiltrating
Way more ballsy than doing some abandoned house*.





*except in Texas

Active sites can be way more fun if you aren't just looking for peeling paints and dramatic lighting for your photographs.

True story: I was attending a two day meeting at a Dallas hotel (Adams Mark), It used to be the Southland Center, and I knew there would be old parts hidden under the new façade. We were given enough breaks to allow me to wander around and explore some areas where guests don't go. They didn't really try too hard to keep me out either.

I got into the kitchen, the laundry, and what I can only describe as the "hotel's operations center" complete with unguarded computers and paper work laying all around. First couple computers I tried had screen saver passwords so I gave up. In the laundry the girls spoke zero English but smiled a lot. (I was wearing a coat and tie) In the kitchen, well that's where I scored big time. A nice young lady was making sandwiches for some meeting or event. Must have been at least 5 dozen on fresh baked bread too. The smell was overpowering.

Maybe I looked official or just hungry as I stood staring at the sandwich tray the nice girl handed me half a turkey sandwich. And smiled. I thanked her in English and Espanol. It was awesome.

I don't care whether anyone thinks that "counts" or not. Anyone else here been in the security system computer room at the Adams Mark?

Yeah, I didn't think so.