Why don't we have more buildings underground?

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

Why don't we have more building underground? Is it a purely psychogical thing? Think of the space that could be saved. Also, wouldn't there be savings in heating/cooling?

[mid]

Digging the hole to put them in is more expensive and less impressive than just going up, basically.

[Argos]

Good point. I´ve always thought about that. Could spare us a lot of troubles (storms, the nasty Sun, etc). I think people suffer from a sort of 'nostalgia' of open spaces. Must be an atavic thing.

[sidmel]

Nice thing about building underground is the positive impact on wildlife and forest lands. Well, once the to toplayer has been reclaimed. I've considered having my next house built mostly underground, but it is a tad on the expensive side.

As far as saving on expenses, you might save a bit on heating and cooling, but would probably make up a lot in lighting.

[banquo's_bumble_puppy]

as far as looking out the window is concerned.....have a bunch of plasma screens with scenic outside views.....

[ToSeek]

Despite the appellation "cave men", our ancestors spent most of their lives out in the open. It's probably the same reason that people in the desert Southwest desperately try to cultivate nice flat expanses of short green plant life despite its total inappropriateness to the climate.

[NEOWatcher]

Digging the hole to put them in is more expensive and less impressive than just going up, basically.
I agree.
Either way, you need a roof, floors, internal walls, a support structure, utilities, etc.
That leaves exterior.
The outside of a normal building only needs to resist the weather. Water hitting it only needs to flow down and away.
The outside of an underground building needs to be completely waterproof, and resist pressures.

In addition of the weather resistance, sewage and storm treatment itself is an issue.
A normal building, all these wastes can flow down to a sewer.
In an underground building the wastes need to be pumped up. (unless the building is shallow enough, or on a high enough hill)

[The Supreme Canuck]

Ever been to Toronto? All along the subway system is a concourse. Lined with shops, restaurants, you name it. The hole was there, so they filled it.

[Moose]

The trick is keeping that hole pumped out, especially if you live in rainy areas with lots of ground water.

I've seen more than one hill locally where all you have to do is poke it with a stick a few times to get a pretty good water-flow.

[Demigrog]

The trick is keeping that hole pumped out, especially if you live in rainy areas with lots of ground water.

I've seen more than one hill locally where all you have to do is poke it with a stick a few times to get a pretty good water-flow.

No joke; hydrostatic pressure is a pain in the neck even when the building is just abutting a hill. When I was searching for a house, there were at least a dozen that I really really liked until I saw the seepage problem in the basement (sometimes having to move conveniently located furniture to find it).

Brings to mind the scene from National Treasure where they find this massive pit dug in the middle of Manhattan island… yeah right, it would have been a massive fishpond in reality.

[Metricyard]

The major problems I see are keeping the air in the building clean, entering and leaving the house, and lighting expenses.

Anything like a house built under ground is going to have a major problem with air circulation. That's going to be a very big expense. Although heating and cooling would be easier, you would still have all kinds of pipes sticking out of the ground. Not much of a selling point.

And how do you you leave your house when you have 2 feet of snow on top of your door? That would surely be a nusiance.

And you'd need to use artifical lighting alot more. Skylights, while an option, isn't too safe when people have the chance of walking over and falling through them, or when you have 5 feet of snow on top of them.

Of course, for the lizard people, this would be ideal, but I don't want this thread to end up in the conspiricy section :)

[TheBlackCat]

In much of Florida you can't have basements at all, the water table is just a few feet underground. Down there people have enough trouble keeping above ground houses from getting flooded.

[Celestial Mechanic]

My, how quickly we forget! What centennial was observed last week? Hint #1: San Francisco. Hint #2: Earthquake. Would you like to be underground when the next big one hits? What, you don't live in earthquake country? Don't be so smug. Every place gets them sooner or later. Pleasant dreams! :)

[mugaliens]

The major problems I see are keeping the air in the building clean

Air exchangers, same as they do with modern houses that are sealed very tight.

entering and leaving the house,

Are you saying it's totally underground? That would really raise the expense to build a roof strong enough to support the roof. One school where I grew up did this in the early 80s and now they have mold/mildew problems from the moisture seeping through the leaks.

and lighting expenses.

Light pipes! http://oikos.com/library/eem/skylights/lightpipes.html

Anything like a house built under ground is going to have a major problem with air circulation. That's going to be a very big expense. Although heating and cooling would be easier, you would still have all kinds of pipes sticking out of the ground. Not much of a selling point.

Not really: http://www.inspiredliving.com/airpurifiers/heat-recovery.htm

And you'd be surprised to learn that there's only the need for one tube about a foot in diameter to provide enough air for the circulation.

And how do you you leave your house when you have 2 feet of snow on top of your door? That would surely be a nusiance.

You don't! Yet another excuse to call in sick, through another log on the fire, and warm up with the kids to a good game of Monopoly! I don't have kids, but good dream, anyway.

And you'd need to use artifical lighting alot more. Skylights, while an option, isn't too safe when people have the chance of walking over and falling through them, or when you have 5 feet of snow on top of them.

True to a point, but most cold-weather skylight systems are made to stay somewhat above the snow, either with domed tops, or with the light pipes that literally stick up as much as you need.

[mugaliens]

In much of Florida you can't have basements at all, the water table is just a few feet underground. Down there people have enough trouble keeping above ground houses from getting flooded.

And if you did manage to perfectly seal it, the hydrostatic pressure is enough to float a lot of things.

Saw a neighbor's pool years ago pop up (well, the aftermath, not it actually popping up) after they'd drained it for cleaning. They learned the hard way that's something that's done when the water table is way low.

[NEOWatcher]

Air exchangers, same as they do with modern houses that are sealed very tight.
[and all the remianing comments]
I agree that there are solutions, and maybe they aren't that expensive, but they are added costs when compared to above ground structures, and most people don't want to spend one thin dime extra than they need to.

And what about construction itself... As eluded before, it's not always easy to dig a hole. Water table, rock layers (I had a neighbor that had to blast to go down 6 ft for a basement), soft/sandy soil, and I'm sure there's more.

I like to think the cost vs benefits are close to a wash, but only in more extreme climates. All things equal, I think people want to look out a window, and have people see thier house.

[mugaliens]

And most people want to be able to look out a window in pretty much any room in which they happen to be!

[Celestial Mechanic]

And while I'm on the topic of living underground in earthquake country, most of the people in Gansu province in China lived in homes burrowed into the loess. (Do they live underground still?) An earthquake there in 1920 killed approximately 200,000 people.

Remember: earthquakes don't kill people, buildings kill people.

[Gillianren]

When earthquakes make 'em fall down. But, yes, point taken. I know a lot of old opal mines in Australia now serve as housing, but I'm reasonably sure it's a seismically stable area.

[jkmccrann]

Why don't we have more building underground? Is it a purely psychogical thing? Think of the space that could be saved. Also, wouldn't there be savings in heating/cooling?

As others have said, because of the various extra expenses involved for one. For 2, where's the view?

I for one greatly enjoy having a view, one that can be shared with friends when hosting social gatherings for instance. Paying for a view pays for itself many times over in time.

But, don't let any of this stop you banquo, I definitely encourage you to build your house underground and live in it - but I'll take the balcony and the harbour views anytime thanks.

[Dave Mitsky]

There is, in fact, a type of house known as an earth sheltered home.

http://architecture.about.com/od/greenarchitecture/g/earthshelter.htm

http://www.earthshelters.com/

http://www.daviscaves.com/index.shtml

http://www.earthshelteredhome.com/

Dave Mitsky

[mugaliens]

Great links, Dave - thanks!

I've long thought of an Earth-sheltered home, with the lighting carefully controlled to provide heat in the winter and to help drive cooling airflows in the summer. The designer has to be very careful, however, as more than one designer has either fouled up, or simply didn't know what they were doing, and the home can turn into either a solar oven or a cold and clammy cave, either way requiring a fair amount of additional energy as most earth-sheltered homes are not as well insulated as others.

They seem to work best when facing the southeast, helping warm them in the morning, then avoiding direct influx in the midday and afternoon, unless the sun's lower in the sky, as it is in Winter.

By the way: "Passive Annual Heat Storage (PAHS) is a method of collecting heat in the summertime, by cooling the home naturally, storing it in the earth naturally, then returning that heat to the home in the winter." - www.earthshelters.com

I thought the only way to do this efficiently is with a type of brine solution, but that requires some plumbing, so is not a "passive" system. The only passive systems I know of don't actually store any energy from the summer to the winter, as it diminishes in hours, not weeks, and certainly not half a year.

[Argos]

My, how quickly we forget! What centennial was observed last week? Hint #1: San Francisco. Hint #2: Earthquake. Would you like to be underground when the next big one hits? What, you don't live in earthquake country? Don't be so smug. Every place gets them sooner or later. Pleasant dreams! :)

I can conceive an earthquake-proof underground house. It can easily (and costly) be made safer than any surface building.