Forum - View Thread - Urban Exploration Resource


	UER Store
	sweet UER decals:


	Activity
	804 online Server Time: 2024-05-12 08:09:01


	Visit
	Infiltration Access All Areas AvBrand

1 2

UER Forum > Archived Rookie Forum > Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? (Viewed 2676 times)

Harvestman Location: Somewhere in SORTA/TANK Territory! Gender: Male Everything about me has a poker face. \| \|	Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? < on 9/5/2010 8:50 PM >

	Hey guys, How fine of a line is there between exploring abandoned places and exploring places that have been up for lease for a number of years? Just wondering, because I got inside 2 storefronts yesterday (an old Tuesday Morning and Hollywood Video that both closed around 2006) and want to know which I was exploring. Oh good, my slow clap processor made it into this thing.

Loki Location: Melbourne, Australia Gender: Male \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 1 on 9/6/2010 1:01 AM >

	Would you consider it exploring? Wank \| Wank \| Wank \| Wank \| Wank \| Wank

MonkeyPunchBaby \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 2 on 9/6/2010 1:15 AM >

	In my town town we have places that are abandoned that they have put for lease/sale signs on to make them seem not so much of an "eyesore." My opinion is, if they are in some for of disrepair/decay they are fair game. Just my opinion.

Mrs.Marni Location: Colorado Gender: Female All right. Get your stupid fuckin' rope. \| \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 3 on 9/6/2010 2:34 AM >

	In my opinion it depends on how long things have been abandoned, for instance there was a school here to remain unnamed and i got in an argument with someone because the school was closed but purchased 2 weeks after it closed so technically it wasn't abandoned, it was an active building. If It has been abandoned for a year+ I'm all over it because if it hasn't been purchased by then it's not what I consider high interest (to buyers)...but high interest to me haha. So it really depends on the explorer. There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain.

chris_007 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male The person I am..hates the person I have been. \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 4 on 9/6/2010 3:21 AM >

	It doesn't really make a difference..Exploring is exploring. Some is more interesting than others..But with the bad economy wiping out most of the business's and even chain stores..there's lots of options for exploring. Would you consider exploring active sites not exploring? Construction sites? Recently I learned that the basement of an old circuit city was linked the entire length of the active strip of stores connected to the building..they are all worth it to just poke around when your list is low on other interesting sites. "The older they are the longer they last"

Gutter Monkey Location: Melbourne, Australia Gender: Male Tell me if this tickles \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 5 on 9/6/2010 3:32 AM >

	Just because a buildings has been unoccupied for years or even decades doesn't really mean that it's 'abandoned' in a legal sense, anyway. Someone somewhere probably holds the title to the property, although it might be in dispute in many cases. The clear title holder might have passed away, for example. But if you fall down a hole and break your leg you should still be able to find someone to sue in most cases.

don_corleyone Location: F/RoX Gender: Male I have abandonment issues \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 6 on 9/6/2010 3:36 AM >

	why not just call it "checking out old buildings" from now on? leave the gun. take the cannoli.

Rinzler

Location: New Jersey

Nomad

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 7 on 9/6/2010 5:54 AM >

Posted by don_corleyone
why not just call it "checking out old buildings" from now on?

Exactly...

And who really cares? lol

Gutter Monkey

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Gender: Male

Tell me if this tickles

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 8 on 9/6/2010 8:31 AM >

Posted by don_corleyone
why not just call it "checking out old buildings" from now on?

"Full contact histori-architectural photography"

Dougo Wrong account -- Look for other Doug Location: Victoria, Australia Gender: Male \| \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 9 on 9/6/2010 9:44 AM >

	I pretty much only do abandoned stuff as apposed to empty stuff. If you not abandoned then it may come under the infiltration banner. FacialBook is killing online forums.

Harvestman

Location: Somewhere in SORTA/TANK Territory!
Gender: Male

Everything about me has a poker face.

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 10 on 9/7/2010 9:48 PM >

Posted by Dougo
I pretty much only do abandoned stuff as apposed to empty stuff.

If you not abandoned then it may come under the infiltration banner.

I always thought of infiltration as exploring active, working sites. Sort of like going to the roof of an active office building.

I honestly don't know if I'd consider it exploring, because in most cases there's not much to see, but on the other hand, it is unoccupied and has barred access...

Oh good, my slow clap processor made it into this thing.

consecrated Location: Connecticut Gender: Male Æthereal \| \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 11 on 9/8/2010 1:38 PM >

	It's all exploring. Doesn't matter what it is. Most things are "vacant" and not actually "abandoned". Exploring just constitutes checking the place out, not necessarily taking pictures or anything. Lot's of us explore all sorts of shit without a camera, without posting online, without internet cred. You can "explore" the woods, an old foundation, a disused factory, the long-vacant video store, or whatever. It's the act of investigating not the end result. Shit, when on vacation, I explore the hotels I am staying in but don't bother with a camera or anything. It's just fun to do. I think most people here do that. My limit with lease/for sale properties is breaking in. Not going to do that. If it's open, it's fair game and a lot of them are.

Harvestman

Location: Somewhere in SORTA/TANK Territory!
Gender: Male

Everything about me has a poker face.

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 12 on 9/8/2010 3:40 PM >

Posted by consecrated
It's all exploring. Doesn't matter what it is. Most things are "vacant" and not actually "abandoned". Exploring just constitutes checking the place out, not necessarily taking pictures or anything. Lot's of us explore all sorts of shit without a camera, without posting online, without internet cred. You can "explore" the woods, an old foundation, a disused factory, the long-vacant video store, or whatever. It's the act of investigating not the end result. Shit, when on vacation, I explore the hotels I am staying in but don't bother with a camera or anything. It's just fun to do. I think most people here do that.

My limit with lease/for sale properties is breaking in. Not going to do that. If it's open, it's fair game and a lot of them are.

So carding yourself in doesn't count?
(In my defense, the video store was barely locked anyway.)

But I see what you're saying. That's probably the same reason why lots of urbexers are also rooftop explorers and basement explorers.

Oh good, my slow clap processor made it into this thing.

MindHacker Location: Suburbs of DC Gender: Male If you spot a terrorist arrow, pin it to the wall with your shoulder. \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 13 on 9/9/2010 3:17 AM >

	I count infiltration as a subcategory of urbex, so "for lease" definitely counts. I just don't mention things like that if I someone asks me what I'm doing. And I don't count carding in / picking locks / etc as "breaking" in, since nothings broken! You'll have to determine your own rules, but from my point of view: no harm = no foul. "That's just my opinion. I would, however, advocate for explosive breaching, since speed and looking cool are both concerns in my job."-Wilkinshire

Loki

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 14 on 9/9/2010 3:48 AM >

Posted by MindHacker
I count infiltration as a subcategory of urbex, so "for lease" definitely counts. I just don't mention things like that if I someone asks me what I'm doing.

And I don't count carding in / picking locks / etc as "breaking" in, since nothings broken! You'll have to determine your own rules, but from my point of view: no harm = no foul.

I agree, cops don't.

Therrin

This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.

Location: North of Chicago, IL
Gender: Male

*Therrin puts on the penguin-suit

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 15 on 9/9/2010 4:08 AM >

+1

In my mind, it's all under the broad category of "exploring".

ex·plore
/ɪkˈsplɔr, -ˈsploʊr/ Show Spelled [ik-splawr, -splohr]
–verb (used with object)
1.
to traverse or range over (a region, area, etc.) for the purpose of discovery: to explore the island.
2.
to look into closely; scrutinize; examine: Let us explore the possibilities for improvement.
3.
Surgery . to investigate into, esp. mechanically, as with a probe.
4.
Obsolete . to search for; search out.

Seems to me that anything you're looking at while interested in is all in broad terms "exploring".

Whether it's interesting to other people or not is another issue. I think exploring mineshafts is fascinating. Sheds? Not so much. A video store? Maybe just for the value of doing something and seeing what's inside, but it doesn't strike me as much of an achievement. Unless it took some kind of active form of infiltration, cuz that's an achievement in and of itself.

I was "exploring" storm drains and sewers which basically led to nowhere the other day. It wasn't terribly interesting to most of the people on here. I still got out of the house, popped 10 or more street lids, climbed inside, took pictures, scoped out routes, etc... It just wasn't overly "exciting" for me or anyone I told or showed it to. Still exploring, just not very spectacular.

You could "explore" a business which is still in current operation, either after-hours or while they're operating and not get caught (hopefully). Technically infiltration, but still very much exploration.

Give a person a match and they'll be warm for a minute, but light them on fire and they'll be warm for the rest of their life. =)

Dougo

Wrong account -- Look for other Doug

Location: Victoria, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 16 on 2/25/2012 1:43 PM >

Posted by Dougo
I pretty much only do abandoned stuff as apposed to empty stuff.

If you not abandoned then it may come under the infiltration banner.

you be full of shit. Learn to spall

FacialBook is killing online forums.

Keaven Location: 15 miles from the Grassy Knoll Gender: Male \| \|	Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? <Reply # 17 on 2/25/2012 3:43 PM >

	Very, very few buildings are truly abandoned. Even if the building has been vacant for years and is likely to eventually be torn down, chances are the owners are still paying the property tax. Exploration is much more that just infiltration. Exploration is much more that just "going places you aren't supposed to go". Exploration can including going any place that most people don't think to go, even places open to the public but merely often overlooked. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of any opportunity to see something you haven't seen. So what if a realtor is holding an open house and you can just walk in? Did you see something relatively few others have seen? Then, you have explored! Don't drive when you can ride your bike or walk. Don't take the sidewalk when you can go through the alley. Don't pass by when you can stop and look. Keep your eyes and ears open. Exploration begins at your front door.

micro

Gender: Male

Slowly I turned

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 18 on 2/25/2012 5:04 PM >

Posted by Keaven

Couldn't have said it better myself.

rob.i.am

Gender: Male

Carpe noctum

Re: Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings?
<Reply # 19 on 2/25/2012 6:20 PM >

Posted by Keaven
Very, very few buildings are truly abandoned. Even if the building has been vacant for years and is likely to eventually be torn down, chances are the owners are still paying the property tax.

Exploration is much more that just infiltration. Exploration is much more that just "going places you aren't supposed to go". Exploration can including going any place that most people don't think to go, even places open to the public but merely often overlooked.

There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of any opportunity to see something you haven't seen. So what if a realtor is holding an open house and you can just walk in? Did you see something relatively few others have seen? Then, you have explored!

Don't drive when you can ride your bike or walk. Don't take the sidewalk when you can go through the alley. Don't pass by when you can stop and look. Keep your eyes and ears open. Exploration begins at your front door.

Exactly.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rob666/

UER Forum > Archived Rookie Forum > Urbexing vs. "for lease" buildings? (Viewed 2676 times)

1 2

All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site: UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service | View Privacy Policy | Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 189 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741445855 pages have been generated.