I'm curious where you guys draw the line at with your interest in photographing or trying to explore a vacant or abandoned spot?

My example is a few larger Supermarkets that closed in my city recently. They are not abandoned per say, just vacant. But have been sitting empty for at least 2 years and I find them fascinating to drive up to, snap a photo of. But they are not in ruins or anything and I feel snapping photos of them wouldn't interest most people seeing as they are not exactly in horrid shape at the moment. Just looking for thoughts and such on "newer buildings".

Ill do anything, back in the day I used to get teased for doing abandoned gas stations, and small houses, junk like that , but to me, if its abandoned, ill poke my head in... I also like abandoned stretches of road, train tracks, foundations in the wood, even caves are enjoyable

if its empty, I consider it urbex... but i do a judgment call on things like freshly empty " for sale " locations.... I like the paint to be pealing a little..


For me urbex is about leaving the house and killing some hours doing something interesting

I've hit the point where I'll explore most anything, unless there is a very obvious threat known before entering. For example, there is an old, old, old hospital in my city notorious for a sea of homeless people, broken staircases, the smell of lingering piss, etc.

But everything else? I'll take my chance. Even if the end result is disappointing, at least I tried.

I explore if I'm interested or curious. This isn't a manifesto.

For my part, I generally explore to see stuff that I don't think many other people will ever get to see. That's a really nonspecific definition, of course, and it can include historic architecture, awesome decay, anachronistic machinery, or anything else I think might be particularly photogenic, or might provide some sort of challenge. I don't really have much of a criteria beyond a gut feeling that a given location would be cool to check out.

In the case of an abandoned supermarket, I would be a lot more interested if I knew that there were still checkout lanes, shelves, and merchandise left over than if I knew that it was just a big empty space. That's where research comes in handy, because you can learn a lot about what a place might have to offer as an abandonment by looking at what it was while active and the circumstances of its closure.

You never know what will be hiding something amazing, so I'll have a look at just about anything and tolerate the disappointments.

When boredom hits, i'll check anything out (even an abandoned supermarket, gas station, etc., if access is easy enough.)

There are no limits to exploring. If something seems interesting enough, it's worth checking out! If it turns out to be rather lame, it still beats sitting around bored, and you now know of a spot not to waste your time checking out in the future.

Apparently there is no need to draw a line. Just pay the fee and get in line.

http://www.uer.ca/...ow.asp?locid=30137

I've done everything from roadside diners to shopping malls to farmhouses to factories. Type of location matters not; if I can find it, it's accessible and reasonably-safe I'll go for it.

I tend to be less interested in abandonments caused by natural disasters.

I'm up for almost anything but I'm much more interested in locations that have an abandoned/forgotten feel to them than places that are vacant but look ready for the next occupant.

The spot in my original post just moved to another location and nobody has leased out the old spot. It's technically a strip mall with about 6 businesses that were in it, only 2 remain...rest is just for rent signs in windows and empty parking lot. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have left anything like food inside since it was just a "re-location" thing.

They are a big name company too so I can't see their old spot being just accessible and unlocked. I drove and parked in the lot by the empty buildings the other day and had a few people driving past me in an almost suspicious/curious manner. I could probably only get some outside photos and that's all

No lines, just explore.

Extend your line. A place doesn't have to be abandoned or even empty to have interesting things to explore. Even live supermarkets have neat "Employees Only" spaces and loading docks and storage rooms that most people don't get to see. It's urban; it's exploration.

Posted by billgeorge Extend your line. A place doesn't have to be abandoned or even empty to have interesting things to explore. Even live supermarkets have neat "Employees Only" spaces and loading docks and storage rooms that most people don't get to see. It's urban; it's exploration.

Yeah, rooftopping is often done on active buildings.

My opinion is that the less we define UE the more interesting experiences we can have. A fixed definition can only close our minds to the opportunities that lay ahead of us.

Abby

No lines but I am much less interested in houses

I usually weigh the odds of getting caught in a place Vs. how cool the place is. Like the OP their are several abandoned grocery stores, chain stores etc. in my area. Most have alarms and are gutted inside. For example the WalMart across from my work was abandoned for awhile. I never bothered trying to get in because it had a alarm, and really what would there be to see in there? I prefer older buildings for the architecture, and large buildings/complexes because their is a lot to see.

For me it doesn't matter if it's abandoned or not. One of my coolest explores was to Länsimetro - in Espoo, Finland - which is under construction.

Personally, what most matters to me is the size and details of the place. Bigger places are usually better (as there's more to see), and it's always great if there's furniture, books, any small things sitting around. If the place got just plain walls and nothing in it, it tends to be a little dull.

I head inside if its somewhat safe, and dormantly vacant/abandoned, i.e. a building for sale wouldn't count, but I would totally find a way into a building that is just sitting vacant, even if it's not officially abandoned.

For me it's one of 2 questions. How awesome is the place i'm getting into? for me, this means super cool peelies and architecture, cool shit, rooftop views, historic value, photo op, possibility of using said place to train parkour, etc. The other question is how hard is it to get into said place? I think i'm the opposite of a lot of people in this regard. The harder to access the better. A large part of urbex for me, is the rush of getting places where i shouldn't be. I live for the challenge. If it's an empty square concrete shell that's locked up like a fort, I'm definitely going to try to get in. Padlocks? Perfect. contorting through small holes? Great. Death defying climb or rooftop jump? Even better. I'm an adrenaline junkie and I also love the feeling of knowing i can go anywhere i please.