Photographing abandoned/derelict buildings in Detroit

I've just read an interesting article on urban decay in Detroit in the UK's Daily Telegraph magazine, illustrated by

some very good photographs by the Magnum photographer Alec Soth. Which got me thinking that I would rather

like to spend a few days driving round Detroit photographing these factories, houses and even railway stations and

hotels.

 

But would I be right to have concerns about safety in these environments; and would it be different with two people

rather than myself alone? And are they hard to find?

I would be more worried about trespassing than safety... Unsure how one would get permission to go into buildings - derelict

yes, but highly unlikely unowned.

According to some of these lists (e.g., http://money.aol.com/mortgage/dangerous-cities) Detroit is the most

dangerous city in America. St. Louis is number two on the same list. On some other lists, St, Louis is #1 and

Detroit #2.

 

I'm usually pretty optimistic about these things, but sometimes you just have to exercise caution, and areas with

derelict buildings just might not be the safest places in any cities. Imagine, as a thought experiment, how safe

you would feel in a particular environment with a couple of hundred dollars pinned on your hat.

Detroit is not a particularly safe city to wander about aimlessly. My wife's extended family is from right outside Detroit and while it may not be quite as bad as they portray it, they have very careful routines that they follow about where they will go or where they will drive, etc., if going into Detroit.

 

As to things like railroad stations and hotels and the like, it's probably not hard to locate them, plenty of resources available, mapping services on the net, etc. I would recommend a working with someone very familiar with the area.

Old factories are generally "locked up" and it may not be possible to gain entry. The Detroit police force does work some of the time, so if you decide to trespass -- you may get personal attention. You may also have a situation in photographing some areas...the locals may think you are on one side or the other of the drug trade, so you might be prepared for anything.

Urban decay is always interesting; the closest thing we have to a social chernobyl .. and dangerous. I spend some of my free time in St. Louis' broken down buildings and abandoned rail yards. They are havens for illegal activity, drug abusers, alcoholics, and prostitutes .. the stuff Hollywood has immortalized.

 

Most are legitimately accessible .. and nothing is really abandoned as there is someone who owns the property. Your best bet is to have a letter from the property owner authorizing you limited access for photography .. although, some places will not give it to you .. especially if there are workplaces sensitive to hazardous waste storage, et... and some are really dangerous to walk through .. simply because they are condemed with potentially unsafe infrastructure .. you definitely want to have a cell phone and somebody with you to watch your back if given permission to enter.

 

You also may find these places harbor transient people, those hiding out from the law for whatever reason as well as the local riff-raff and occassionally packs of wild dogs .. yes, we have those in the City of St. Louis. I've done some photography in such places, but I carry a gun .. I don't rely upon calling 911 and wait 45 minutes for the cops to save my ass .. it's not the wild dogs that worry me.

JDM is right about St. Louis .. I'd recommend staying out of the north side 24-7; south side is ok depending on the time of day. It is comforting to note that most of the gun play is just rival gang related, but recently they've shot a few cops just driving down the street .. but the point being you want to avoid standing in/near the cross fire .. years and years of liberal polcy making doesn't work .. and we've seen an upsurge in violent crimes because of economic issues .. but, Detroit, man I would not even bother going there ..

I can't imagine what you would photograph there that would be worth risking life and limb for. YMMV

The urban ruins of St. Louis and East St. Louis (in Illinois) are very "photogenic", and I may take a few

pictures the next time I drive through, but I don't believe I'll be wandering into the ruins (at least not

without a police escort). I'll just shoot from the car on the street, thank you. The "dangers" of these strange

places are vastly over-rated, but I still wouldn't roam around by myself with a couple of thousand dollars in

equipment around my neck!

 

Sometimes you can get access as I did years ago before the renovation of the St. Louis Union Station (now a mall).<div></div>

Why are we talking about St Louis please? The question was about Detroit. I'd be interested in hearing from those prople that know Detroit.

Detroit is dangerous, poke about at your own risk. Did you miss that in the replies?

Carl Stone. Are you getting snitty because I tried to bring the thread back to its intended subject rather than gratefully accepting peoples comments about a place I don't intend to go to. I read your reply. Do you have any experience of Detroit? If you have it would make your point useful, even though I might still be wondering how Alec Soth made his photographs without losing life or limb.

Sorry David, but, you know, you don't OWN this thread. Nor is the topic, which is archived by the way, only about YOUR needs. And as Carl pointed out, there may be some lessons to learn in more general terms. I think your response is where "snitty" enters in.

It sounds like you're "getting snitty". I'm done here.

Here I once lived in the Detroit area and would vist any area there; since I understand the city. I visted my dads old childhood house built about 1900 in the bowels of the city a couple years back. I saw the concrete hand made fenceposts my dad and grandfather made; the cellar trap door for the coal chute. I even talked to the nice eldery couple who live there in the bad area of town. There are good folks in the bad areas too. Some folks are going to have more problems visting bad areas of citys due to ones own attitude; lack of street sense, or looking down at folks. Detroit is on its bum now. Having a local in Detroit as a guide would be a wise move; visting poor areas has risks.

Frankly, if you can't make an objective contribution to the question I asked, I can't see what is the need to answer at all. If you want to talk about St Louis -or anything else- then you should start another thread. It is not a question of "owning" the thread; more a question really that the anwers to this or any other question from anyone should make at least some attempt to be relevant to the original point, and if that isn't so then you have chaos, archived or otherwise. You may as well chat away about the Philippines or Guatemala or depth of field as St Louis, and if your promoting a cause that responders should be welcome to say whatever they feel about anything, thus turning this into a chat-room, them I strongly disagree.

I was born in Detroit and raised in the suburbs, where I still live. A local guide is such a good idea. You can probably hook up with one here, or contact one of the Detroit area camera clubs (Google is your friend).

 

Take a long look at the "Fabulous Ruins of Detroit" website.

 

http://detroityes.com/home.htm

 

Steel shank boots that can stop a nail are a good thing. So is having your tetanus shot up to date. You have a much greater danger of injuring yourself on sharp objects than of running into "hostiles". Get either a hard hat (and we have so many industrial supply places where you can buy one) or some other form of hat, every time I go urban exploring, crud falls on me...

 

Get yourself a Detroit Redwings jacket or cap. There is nothing that will break the ice with Detroiters or suburbanites like hockey. It can be 102 degrees (39 degrees C) in the middle of summer, and Detroiters dripping sweat will still talk about hockey. Don't even mention soccer, in Detroit, that's a kid's game. And don't refer to what we call "football" as "American football", either. In fact, it's best not to use the word "football", at all. Just trust me on this one.

 

That aside, MCD, "Michigan Central Depot", "the" train station, the one where you emphasize the definite article, is supposedly the most popular abandoned building in the world. I go there several times a year, and the worst trouble I've ever had was a "move along" once from the police, about 10 years ago. I have never been in the building for more than an hour without encountering tourists. And that is an "owned" building. The way in is not obvious, and a native guide is helpful. You catch me on a day when I'm in the mood to go down just to play my flute in the great hall, and I'll take you.

 

Fisher Building 21 is the most "factory" looking building you'll find, park close, do the walk around, you'll find a way in.

 

If you go in the Packard plant, there are guards, they don't go far from the guard shack, so enter somewhere else. You will get lost. You will not exit the building the same way you came in. Get a GPS. Once you get out of the building, you will need it to get back to where you left your car.

 

Ignore the Philly dude, he's just miffed because our hockey team can eat his for breakfast...

For those interested, the article David refers to is part of a series entitled "The Eagle and the Dragon", contrasting the

economies of the U.S. and China.

 

Part one is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/06/28/sm_america28.xml

 

Part two contains the images that inspired this thread: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?

xml=/portal/2008/07/05/sm_america05.xml

 

Soth would seem to have several advantages over the average photographer on the security front (and this is all purely

conjecture on my part): Soth typically works with a large, cumbersome, and, perhaps, seemingly worthless large format

camera. Soth's camera, additionally, does not contain storage for a day's worth of images, and comes with an

omnipresent assistant. Also, one cannot wholly discount the value in working under the auspices of a major publication,

at least in securing official approval for photography.

 

I might also mention that Soth is a remarkably accessible individual, though he claims to be "sick of email". Why not

inquire of him about shooting in derelict areas of Detroit? His contact page is here: http://www.alecsoth.com/contact/frameset.html

 

All of that said, it occurs to me that one reason posters may have diverted into discussion of other locales is this: many

locations around the world (and U.S.) may be quite analogous to shooting the streets of Detroit. In fact, I would suggest

that your working method in Detroit need not be significantly different than it was when you photographed in India, Morocco, or

Cuba.

That is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/07/05/sm_america05.xml

Sound advice from Joe W. I grew up there, have family there, and I go back to visit when I can (or have to). For an outsider, a guide is a must. Getting around in the heart of the city, especially the way it's been chopped into pieces by giant freeways, makes just getting your bearings difficult.

 

I took in a hockey game in February, accompanied by my mother and niece and lost my way back to the car park. Had a taxi not shown up at the critical moment, I know there was going to be some nasty altercation with some street people who had us for marks. Fifty bucks was cheap to get to the car, considering the cold and ice, and the company.

 

That said, it saddens me everytime I see another photo spread or story on the demise of a once great American city. All of us Yanks should be ashamed.

 

Happy shooting.

Sure, doing this kind of photography is risky. My own experience is that a "quick in/quick out" approach minimizes the risk but does not remove it. I was almost arrested for trespassing in September, 2006 because of miscommunication about what was off limits. I was almost surrounded one night last year by members of what looked to me like a youth gang in Charlotte, NC. In the first case I had to talk my way out of it--and it was an honest mistake on my part. In the second case I had to hop in the car and drive off. I was never more than forty feet from the car. I still haven't given up on photographing the streets of Charlotte at night, but I have to rethink my strategy. Will high ISO and shooting from the car do it? Not always. I have to think about how long it would take to get the tripod down and into the car.

 

Is it worth the risk? I don't think that one can ever take the risk out of photography, but the best shots (of a certain sort) can always be risky. For me, I accept that and try to find ways to minimize the risk. I don't see myself saying "I won't try this because it's risky" if the shot is there.

 

Anything worth doing involves some risks. It is always a personal call and depends on the situation. I look at it as I do at motorcycling. I know that it is risky, but I love it too much to give it up. I simply try to take steps to minimize the risk: I assume that every driver on the road is out to kill me, is going to capriciously turn in front of me or pull out in front of me, etc. I assume that half of them are blind and cannot see me. It has worked. . . so far.

 

In photography, typically I fear the cops more than the locals, for what that's worth, but I do look for scowls if I am shooting on the streets. If I am shooting old houses in the country, I notice if a car slows to a crawl nearby. People can be awfully territorial.

 

--Lannie

Thank you all for your input. I'm actually encouraged by some things said here, apparticularly from the viewpoint of access, though I would intend to photograph externally as well as inside (if I can gain access). I'm going to try and build this into my schedule for early or late winter, avoiding the very coldest months, maybe in combination with a few days wandering round Chicago's modern architecture. I also think a local guide is a great idea- indeed I've already searched out the umbrella organisation to which the camera clubs in Detroit affiliate and I think I'll start there trying for a savvy local guide to help me find my way around and keep me from doing things that are stupid in a local context. In fact I've recently returned from Romania and a kind of similar trip. This was conducted in the company of another Photo.net member, Alecu Grigore, and frankly I could not have done the trip without him.<div></div>

As a Brit, your travels to the seedier parts of the US should be, shall we say, an experience. I know that you fancy yourself

as enlightened, but trust me, you are a babe in the woods in these places.

"you are a babe in the woods in these places" You may well be right , and indeed it may be worse than that for whilst I take sensible care with money and documents etc, I do not wander round places with the thought that people may actively wish to hurt me. But thats why I'm taking on board the the need for a local guide, though sadly there are very many parts of urban UK which are not exactly lands of milk & honey.

For the uninitiated, with all due respect, a local guide will be worth his weight in gold.