6 ms·

In the 80's and 90's, trespassing was a kind of hipster sport in Pittsburgh. There were numerous abandoned steel mills and factories-- these were huge facilitie

In the 80's and 90's, trespassing was a kind of hipster sport in Pittsburgh. There were numerous abandoned steel mills and factories-- these were huge facilities that had stopped operating years ago and were left to the elements. Since many of us lived near these structures, it was irresistible to explore them and see what's inside. Photographically, they're amazing subjects. They're also a dream-canvas for graffiti artists. It was also cool to just be there in the middle of the night with your friends, in a place that was so alien from everyplace else in the city. That said, property management doesn't see it that way. For them, it's a liability. These places are dangerous, there are often no lights and steep drops without guard rails. Sometimes the floor is just missing in places. Sharp objects everywhere and no easy way to get help if there's an accident. And if something did happen, who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete? Not easy to say (regardless of what you may think). Security guards patrolled the area and would investigate any flashlights or people sightings. Worst case scenario you would get a citation, though our crew never got caught (in steel mills). In less dangerous buildings, things were more loose. If you had a camera and were there to take cool shots, security was apt to just kick you out. A camera was like a kind of "passport" for trespassers. Graffiti artists got a much harder response.

anodyne33 7y ago
I'm in the Law and Finance building on 4th. For years our elevator access was secured by a hasp and had direct access to the roof. That was a fun place to check out the 250th anniversary fireworks with a 6 pack.
naringas 7y ago
> who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete? Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault?
- ww520 7y ago
  Money.
- oskapt 7y ago
  Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. I carried $1M liability insurance on my Brooklyn townhouse because some visitor could slip and fall and sue me for all sorts of hardship. The system is broken. On the flip side I now live in a country where the law guarantees public access to the river running alongside of my property. The locals don’t actually know how the law works, only that they are supposed to have river access. So they jump fences, walk through my property, steal things on their way by, cut down my trees to make smokey fires for their bbq, piss and shit all over, leave empty beer cans and bottles and trash on the riverbank or in the river, and then swear that it’s their right to do so. So when they enter my property, they get a shotgun in their face and they are encouraged to find one of the myriad of other points of entry to the river. The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. Enter from the abandoned field on the other side. It’s the same river. The public don’t respect public places. They treat them as private places they can destroy and leave. The article talks about the place where homeless people would shelter from the wind but fails to mention that they also piss there until the spot reeks from 3 meters away. Is that their right too?
  - dbatten 7y ago
    To clarify... in the US, the property owner can be held liable for injury that results _from the property owner's negligence, etc._ even if the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime.
  - circlefavshape 7y ago
    Wait > I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. You were doing something illegal, got injured, and sued? And you say "the system is broken"? The system is broken because of behaviour like yours
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault? You would be reasonable to think that, but it's pretty much up in the air who gets held to account. It depends on the specifics of the situation, the lawyers of both sides and the stakes involved. This is a problem with abandoned heavy industrial facilities. The owners make themselves generationally rich from that business. And then, when it loses profitability, they close the facility and let it rot (perhaps changing the property ownership several times). A huge facility in a place where people live just rusting away to nothing, too expensive to demolish, unusable for other purposes, just sitting there as a sign of that community's economic implosion. This is the kind of stuff that conditions people's judgment of the property owners. There is a reasonable point of concern there and it can pop out when somebody gets hurt exploring that place.
  - noworld 7y ago
    What does that have to do with people trespassing? Is the argument that "The owners make themselves generationally rich," therefore they are liable for people's trespassing?
    - crispyambulance 7y ago
      Because, in some sense, property owners are seen as irresponsible for letting these giant facilities rot in towns where people live, negatively impacting the local economy and well-being of everyone near it.

anodyne33 7y ago

I'm in the Law and Finance building on 4th. For years our elevator access was secured by a hasp and had direct access to the roof. That was a fun place to check out the 250th anniversary fireworks with a 6 pack.

naringas 7y ago

> who is to blame if a hipster falls down a chute 50 feet onto concrete? Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault?

ww520 7y ago
Money.
oskapt 7y ago
Not in the US. The property owner is liable for injury in the property even if the person was trespassing or committing a crime. People have legally shot intruders in their home and then been successfully sued in civil court for the injuries to the intruder. I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. I carried $1M liability insurance on my Brooklyn townhouse because some visitor could slip and fall and sue me for all sorts of hardship. The system is broken. On the flip side I now live in a country where the law guarantees public access to the river running alongside of my property. The locals don’t actually know how the law works, only that they are supposed to have river access. So they jump fences, walk through my property, steal things on their way by, cut down my trees to make smokey fires for their bbq, piss and shit all over, leave empty beer cans and bottles and trash on the riverbank or in the river, and then swear that it’s their right to do so. So when they enter my property, they get a shotgun in their face and they are encouraged to find one of the myriad of other points of entry to the river. The law says they can access the river, but not that they can trespass to do it. Enter from the abandoned field on the other side. It’s the same river. The public don’t respect public places. They treat them as private places they can destroy and leave. The article talks about the place where homeless people would shelter from the wind but fails to mention that they also piss there until the spot reeks from 3 meters away. Is that their right too?
- dbatten 7y ago
  To clarify... in the US, the property owner can be held liable for injury that results _from the property owner's negligence, etc._ even if the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime.
- circlefavshape 7y ago
  Wait > I had a freight elevator door pin my hand and damage a bunch of nerves while I was helping someone move furniture into his illegal Brooklyn loft. I got $50k for it. You were doing something illegal, got injured, and sued? And you say "the system is broken"? The system is broken because of behaviour like yours
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
crispyambulance 7y ago
> Why wouldn't it be the hipster's fault? You would be reasonable to think that, but it's pretty much up in the air who gets held to account. It depends on the specifics of the situation, the lawyers of both sides and the stakes involved. This is a problem with abandoned heavy industrial facilities. The owners make themselves generationally rich from that business. And then, when it loses profitability, they close the facility and let it rot (perhaps changing the property ownership several times). A huge facility in a place where people live just rusting away to nothing, too expensive to demolish, unusable for other purposes, just sitting there as a sign of that community's economic implosion. This is the kind of stuff that conditions people's judgment of the property owners. There is a reasonable point of concern there and it can pop out when somebody gets hurt exploring that place.
- noworld 7y ago
  What does that have to do with people trespassing? Is the argument that "The owners make themselves generationally rich," therefore they are liable for people's trespassing?
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    Because, in some sense, property owners are seen as irresponsible for letting these giant facilities rot in towns where people live, negatively impacting the local economy and well-being of everyone near it.