Posted by DawnPatrol ^couldn't you argue you're doing a service to BOTH by keeping a place secret? You keep it open for others who explore it and you keep it hidden, for longer at least, from people who want to do harm to it. The only way you can justify exposing a building as doing a service to it is if you expose it to the right people, aka someone or a group of people who has the money or motivation to start a fund to preserve it.
|
That's an absolutely wonderful thought in theory, but in reality proves to be impractical. How do you know you are finding the right donor who the site will resonate with most? I work directly with non-profits, like Preservation Chicago, and even they need to spread the word about the most endangered buildings through a public forum -- which is why they publish their top 7 lists annually to a massive audience. How then does one always ensure his message is being filtered exactly to the right audience and avoids being seen by the other audience (who by the way, is extremely motivated to find out). If you can crack that I have a job for you in my industry.
You have to ask yourself do you think the intentions of people are more good than evil? And if you fear that those who wish to do harm to buildings are going to do so because of your actions, then why don;t you take a more active partnership with the police and have these buildings secured? Well, probably because you want to make sure that you can get back in sometime in the future. Or maybe you really hope A-Okay Urbex Explorer Johnny can get in as well, but not Dickhead Tagger Patrick. You can't always have it both ways. You also need to ask yourself is your motivation more individually-focused, or are you thinking of the collective? And if so, which group are you favoring? Just your group of cool urbexers?