Posted by EatsTooMuchJam I'm usually pretty big on keeping sensitive places on the downlow, but none of the stuff in this article was even remotely sensitive IMO. And Chi-Ex - if you were to "mess up" Katherine, you'd have a pretty big line of explorers who would be delighted to return you the favor. She's really nice, has a lot of friends in the community, and has been exploring stuff longer than probably 90% of regular UER posters. And Av - it's great for you that you've never been contacted by the police about exploring stuff. That doesn't mean other explorers haven't been. As someone mentioned, nearly everyone in MSP with any sort of web presence (and some without) has been contacted at some point.

Sorry i talked bad about the popular kids giving out addresses and stuff to viable locations to sell books, I am sure you guys are all friends.

Did I actually mean i would beat up this girl? fuck no. I meant that I was upset.
So since they are nice people, what they did was totally cool? Ok I understand..

Brind, not hating just venting.

Lawndale is in demo the last two weeks or so.
Edgewater and Ravenswood are still viable and security is a joke.
The parade float factory is still viable and attached to a live building out front.
The "garland" factory is still viable as far as I know.
St. Laurence school is still there?

My main point, did ya have to give out the addresses and label everything with their real names? selling books and having lots of friends makes it ok? Glorifying stealing is ok too?

Posted by kenfagerdotcom I've explored with Eric Holubow before. He's a decent guy and taught me a lot. One time I fell into deep freezing water in a basement of a Chicago location. He had hand warmers and other stuff with him, enough to keep me warm for the rest of the shoot. I'm glad that the article mentions the gear he brings with him. Eric is also a very talented photographer. I've seen his work posted in various galleries even. Getting the shots he does requires a lot of energy, effort, and physical exertion. At the end of the day he's entitled to create something beautiful and share it with the world.

even if these were my friends my first comment to them would be "why did you do that?"

Posted by Chi-Ex Sorry i talked bad about the popular kids giving out addresses and stuff to viable locations to sell books, I am sure you guys are all friends.

Where did they give away addresses and entry information? I don't really see that in the article. You basically called for violence against them over a pretty tame article.

Posted by Chi-Ex Lawndale is in demo the last two weeks or so. Edgewater and Ravenswood are still viable and security is a joke. The parade float factory is still viable and attached to a live building out front. The "garland" factory is still viable as far as I know. St. Laurence school is still there? My main point, did ya have to give out the addresses and label everything with their real names? selling books and having lots of friends makes it ok? Glorifying stealing is ok too?

You just gave away as much location information as the article did...

Doesn't anyone live and let live anymore?

Posted by Chi-Ex Lawndale is in demo the last two weeks or so. Edgewater and Ravenswood are still viable and security is a joke. The parade float factory is still viable and attached to a live building out front. The "garland" factory is still viable as far as I know. St. Laurence school is still there?

Thanks for the list. Just got some new spray paint to try out.

Posted by SubLunar Where did they give away addresses and entry information? I don't really see that in the article. You basically called for violence against them over a pretty tame article. You just gave away as much location information as the article did...

"Hodges was living in nearby Humboldt Park, and visited the school almost every Sunday to document its demolition and pick over the remains; she still has several boxes of schoolbooks, cheerleading uniforms, trophies, and chemistry lab equipment. Her favorite sites these days are a building at 48th and Halsted she calls "the Float Factory" because it's filled with old parade floats, and another at 119th and Vincennes, which she calls "the Garland Factory," a dumping ground for dollar-store overstock."

Yes I did give away a bunch of information. everyone said these sites do not matter anymore so lets burn them up.

Posted by Chi-Ex even if these were my friends my first comment to them would be "why did you do that?"

The original source is always a great place to start. I urge you to direct the question to Eric. This happened to me a little while back. Source -> http://www.uer.ca/...urrpage=1&pp#post3

Posted by Chi-Ex "Hodges was living in nearby Humboldt Park, and visited the school almost every Sunday to document its demolition and pick over the remains; she still has several boxes of schoolbooks, cheerleading uniforms, trophies, and chemistry lab equipment. Her favorite sites these days are a building at 48th and Halsted she calls "the Float Factory" because it's filled with old parade floats, and another at 119th and Vincennes, which she calls "the Garland Factory," a dumping ground for dollar-store overstock."

Thanks, I missed that bit in my skimming over the article. That is definitely lame to include such unnecessarily specific information. Unless these places are already trashed beyond hope, there's no reason to advertise them to all who can read. But I'm not a local so I leave that final determination up to someone else.

Posted by Chi-Ex Yes I did give away a bunch of information. everyone said these sites do not matter anymore so lets burn them up.

Don't let the opinions of others so easily sway your convictions. By doing this, you deflated your argument entirely.

Neither the garland factory nor the parade float factory are exactly sensitive places. Hell, last time I was at the parade float factory, my friends and I left when about 15 local kids walked in... and I remember about 40% of the place already being covered in graffiti.
If this were 2008 and they'd been talking about Michael Reese, for instance, I'd have had a problem with it... but those two specific examples are small, semi-interesting, and pretty well-known already.

And no, it's not OK that they gave stuff away because they're nice people. It's OK because those things weren't exactly secret before. Regardless, threatening violence against people for them was completely out of line.

Posted by EatsTooMuchJam Neither the garland factory nor the parade float factory are exactly sensitive places. Hell, last time I was at the parade float factory, my friends and I left when about 15 local kids walked in... and I remember about 40% of the place already being covered in graffiti. If this were 2008 and they'd been talking about Michael Reese, for instance, I'd have had a problem with it... but those two specific examples are small, semi-interesting, and pretty well-known already. And no, it's not OK that they gave stuff away because they're nice people. It's OK because those things weren't exactly secret before. Regardless, threatening violence against people for them was completely out of line.

I am not threatening them with violence. I meant it as "i would like to kick their butts" but without any intention to. Much like saying "you ought to get your butt kicked" without meaning to actually do someone harm. I will have to watch what I say next time.

The places were not exactly secret but providing a map in the newspaper is a little much. Also, the parade float factory was forgotten about by most people and all the entry points had been sealed since the fire. I have not seen anyone in there in the last year and only once did it look like someone had been there.

Posted by Mike Dijital I agree with Av on this one, but I will say you'd be surprized how people lose their mind when the taste of some sort of main stream media fame presents itself... Back in the day I got an offer to do a piece for the hallmark channel and I was fully ready to show the producer my ways into Danvers state and what not over the thought of "being on TV " in the end the producer chickened out and I ended up taking him to a bunch of low key places but, we schlep along with the herd of urbexers and sometimes that glint of mass media recognition makes us lose or common sense and principals. ive seen it happen to the best of us over the years

I guess I am making a "mountain out of mole hill" but it would have been a decent article if it didn't (IMO) scream, "look at me and buy my book".

I think it's kind of silly to give out locations, but at the same time it makes sense in the context of the article. I mean, most of the time when people get interviewed in these kinds of articles they talk about preserving history. Well how are you going to interest readers in preserving history if they have no idea what's being preserved? There's a kind of excitement about reading about something that relates to you. It's a much more moving article for someone who can be like 'oh! Lawndale theater! That's right down the street!' than someone unconnected. Street addresses are a little unnecessary though.

The only reason these articles bother me is because with the majority of them that I have read there seems to be some kind of forced 'purpose' to exploring. We're preserving history or bringing attention to social issues... it's like people are ashamed to be like 'this is what I do because I like it, I don't need a reason'. I guess I understand wanting to justify your hobby to people who don't understand it, but I never feel like I can relate to the people in these articles. They never really go into the excitement of rediscovering what society has thrown away or locked off. It's always just 'this is what I'm doing and some how it's a good thing!'. That is why I dislike people like Seph Lawless. You can't call yourself an activist when the morale is an afterthought. People like that don't explore to expose public injustice, they explore because they like to explore, and hey they can make money doing this other thing too!

Posted by Chi-Ex I guess I am making a "mountain out of mole hill" but it would have been a decent article if it didn't (IMO) scream, "look at me and buy my book".

I agree, and it goes without saying 90% of people who talk to the media do it for ulterior motives. whether its buy my book, or as simple as look at me I do something cool...


People get so bent about location dropping here but in general most people dont stumble on UER, you " most of the time " already are an explorer and are looking for a place to explore and stumble on it, BUT news papers, TV, and magazines ARE read by joe armchair explorer, and those are the people who go out and do stupid things that get locations sealed up

Posted by Mike Dijital I agree, and it goes without saying 90% of people who talk to the media do it for ulterior motives. whether its buy my book, or as simple as look at me I do something cool... People get so bent about location dropping here but in general most people dont stumble on UER, you " most of the time " already are an explorer and are looking for a place to explore and stumble on it, BUT news papers, TV, and magazines ARE read by joe armchair explorer, and those are the people who go out and do stupid things that get locations sealed up

Thanks for clearing that up for all of us here in the great lakes.

Your welcome, the way you guys have these petty fight threads every other week over keeping locations secret, I figured I would help. this stuff is so 10 years ago in the northeast

Posted by Chi-Ex The link to the article is below. http://www.chicago...ntent?oid=14190752 These idiots tell of locations, POEs, and more in an interview to a local paper. Now all my friends are blowing me up asking to go to these places. A lot of the locations are still there. All to sell books and pictures. Now I know how you all feel. These people tell the entire world WHERE and HOW to get in. Plus they are now responsible for anyone who follows their directions and gets hurt or killed. I seriously would like to have harsh word with these people. (edited because everyone thought i really meant to do something crazy) Katherine of Chicago (Katherine Hodges) Eric Holubow Edward McClelland (wrote the article)

Lord I know this is a mistake, but I'd like to add my 2 cents. Since, well, it sounds like some folks are very upset about the article.

Also, I'd like to make myself available for an ass whooping. You can find me here: 35 W. Wacker Drive (which if you did your homework the article would lead you too). Let's grab a beer afterwards.

So yes, I was contacted by Edward (aka Ted) McClelland about the piece. Who, not coincidentally has written about this genre for some time http://edwardmccle...hin-but-blue-skies

He started off by saying that he'd like to do a story about me and my photography because he knew I had a book coming out and thought I'd like the attention. Which, when you have a book coming out is ALWAYS a good idea. So to talk about the book for a second. I was also contacted by a published 18 months ago (yes, it's amazing how long the process takes -- no wonder publishing is dying) to do a book. I never contacted them, though welcomed the opportunity. I had been doing this project for some time, had a baby on the way and figured this would be a nice summation of all of my efforts. Again, it wasn't something I sought out - it just presented itself. Just so you're clear, the book does publish the names and locations of places. Because my personal philosophy (which differs from you -- so clearly let's fight about it), feels the names and the histories of these places should accompany the photos, because I believe the true act of preservation cannot occur unless people are moved by the history of the place and its significance. A picture cannot do it alone. I also feel it's important to tie location to place, because people do have personal histories/experiences with these buildings and should be able to know more if they are so interested. In my book I describe taking an older family friend to Michael Reese back in 2008 because she needed to see what the place that she gave birth to her two daughters looked like now. It had significance to her, my work in that building created awareness for her (through my family, not my postings) regarding its current condition and I didn't want to deny her that experience. But to be clear, that does not mean I shoot a location and post it the next day either. Which brings me back to the article.

When Ted contacted me about the piece, he wanted me to take him to EMC. But I felt a little worried about taking him to a viable site, and suggested St. Laurence instead because it was actively being demo'ed and would be gone by the articles publishing. Yes, I know there might be other scholarly places nearby, but I didn't reveal that in the article, others on this thread have. They did take several photos of mine from EMC and also asked me about it for the article. So, for as much as I tried to avoid the topic, it was clear he was determined to write about it. And by the way, the POE described in the article is no longer possible.

What shall we talk about next? Me making a dollar for my work? I'm not sure exactly what the issue is here. I'm not sure if people want to talk about evils of capitalism and reference Ayn Rand, but me selling my work also happened accidentally. Meaning I displayed my work at a bar and someone bought it -- and then I had a crazy idea. And I know I'm not the first to do that, the Richard Nickel estate certainly has, and I know others will continue to do so.

so yeah, let the internet flame war continue...

Posted by ebow Lord I know this is a mistake, but I'd like to add my 2 cents. Since, well, it sounds like some folks are very upset about the article. Also, I'd like to make myself available for an ass whooping. You can find me here: 35 W. Wacker Drive (which if you did your homework the article would lead you too). Let's grab a beer afterwards. So yes, I was contacted by Edward (aka Ted) McClelland about the piece. Who, not coincidentally has written about this genre for some time http://edwardmccle...hin-but-blue-skies He started off by saying that he'd like to do a story about me and my photography because he knew I had a book coming out and thought I'd like the attention. Which, when you have a book coming out is ALWAYS a good idea. So to talk about the book for a second. I was also contacted by a published 18 months ago (yes, it's amazing how long the process takes -- no wonder publishing is dying) to do a book. I never contacted them, though welcomed the opportunity. I had been doing this project for some time, had a baby on the way and figured this would be a nice summation of all of my efforts. Again, it wasn't something I sought out - it just presented itself. Just so you're clear, the book does publish the names and locations of places. Because my personal philosophy (which differs from you -- so clearly let's fight about it), feels the names and the histories of these places should accompany the photos, because I believe the true act of preservation cannot occur unless people are moved by the history of the place and its significance. A picture cannot do it alone. I also feel it's important to tie location to place, because people do have personal histories/experiences with these buildings and should be able to know more if they are so interested. In my book I describe taking an older family friend to Michael Reese back in 2008 because she needed to see what the place that she gave birth to her two daughters looked like now. It had significance to her, my work in that building created awareness for her (through my family, not my postings) regarding its current condition and I didn't want to deny her that experience. But to be clear, that does not mean I shoot a location and post it the next day either. Which brings me back to the article. When Ted contacted me about the piece, he wanted me to take him to EMC. But I felt a little worried about taking him to a viable site, and suggested St. Laurence instead because it was actively being demo'ed and would be gone by the articles publishing. Yes, I know there might be other scholarly places nearby, but I didn't reveal that in the article, others on this thread have. They did take several photos of mine from EMC and also asked me about it for the article. So, for as much as I tried to avoid the topic, it was clear he was determined to write about it. And by the way, the POE described in the article is no longer possible. What shall we talk about next? Me making a dollar for my work? I'm not sure exactly what the issue is here. I'm not sure if people want to talk about evils of capitalism and reference Ayn Rand, but me selling my work also happened accidentally. Meaning I displayed my work at a bar and someone bought it -- and then I had a crazy idea. And I know I'm not the first to do that, the Richard Nickel estate certainly has, and I know others will continue to do so. so yeah, let the internet flame war continue...

Notoriety is fun isn't it?

I was actually more upset with her then you at giving actual addresses of viable sites. Every one seems to say "all your secret places wont be secrets forever" but by blowing up a spot aren't you saying "I am done with it, I had my fun and it is no longer my concern"? It seems that way but instead of getting all bent out of shape about it like I have, maybe my perception is wrong. What is your take on it?

I would love to talk about EMC but that would have to be a private discussion since I have seen it more recently then you. ;)

I am always down for a beer, talking urbex, and fighting over opinions.

Maybe I did get all butt hurt about it but this is my first time trying to be apart of something bigger(funny way of showing it, I know) and being more responsible about it instead of going out on my own as I have for so long. I am a "newb" to these urbex communities. Usually I stayed the hell away from you people.
1.

Posted by Brind Seph Lawless isn't a problem because he wants to create a book or share his photos/locations with the world. He's a problem because he's just a terrible human being.

^^^^^^ THAT!

Posted by Chi-Ex ...Every one seems to say "all your secret places wont be secrets forever" but by blowing up a spot aren't you saying "I am done with it, I had my fun and it is no longer my concern"? It seems that way but instead of getting all bent out of shape about it like I have, maybe my perception is wrong. What is your take on it?

It's a very good philosophical question. How long does one sit on a building? There's no hard and fast rule. Does an urbex building have a statute of limitations. I for one, sat on my photos of Uptown for nearly 5 years before putting them out there. But if I'm the only one who's shot a building (to my knowledge), and I want to publish the photos I will wait on making the location name known. But at some point I can't raise awareness as to the perilous state of a building if no one knows about it.

But an attitude that is carried by many in "field" is the right we have to keep a location secret. I am fully aware of the risks that come from taggers/squatters/scrappers. But after we photograph a building has its safety entered into our hands? Is it our right, nay our OBLIGATION to protect it? I know photographers actions have repercussions, and one can't just shoot and post without regard for the safety and rights of others. So perhaps buildings should be treated as people, and have a right to not be defamed and have their character misrepresented. But people in public don't always have those rights...at least in America. Then another argument would be that abandoned buildings aren't public spaces --- but I sure treat them as such

Posted by ebow It's a very good philosophical question. How long does one sit on a building? There's no hard and fast rule. Does an urbex building have a statute of limitations. I for one, sat on my photos of Uptown for nearly 5 years before putting them out there. But if I'm the only one who's shot a building (to my knowledge), and I want to publish the photos I will wait on making the location name known. But at some point I can't raise awareness as to the perilous state of a building if no one knows about it. But an attitude that is carried by many in "field" is the right we have to keep a location secret. I am fully aware of the risks that come from taggers/squatters/scrappers. But after we photograph a building has its safety entered into our hands? Is it our right, nay our OBLIGATION to protect it? I know photographers actions have repercussions, and one can't just shoot and post without regard for the safety and rights of others. So perhaps buildings should be treated as people, and have a right to not be defamed and have their character misrepresented. But people in public don't always have those rights...at least in America. Then another argument would be that abandoned buildings aren't public spaces --- but I sure treat them as such

This is a pretty good argument that I've perviously simplified:

"Will my actions make this location's accessibility more difficult or dangerous (physically or legally) for the next explorer to want to venture here?" If so, you probably shouldn't do what you're about to do.

This goes for making obvious POE's, smashing windows, throwing shit off roofs, fireworks, stealing, scrapping, graffiti, posting photos on your website, harassing security, naming places in books, keeping information visible on public sites, talking to reporters, PhD thesis about sneaking into bunkers, being on 'extreme' TV-UE shows, etc.