Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2011, 07:13 AM
(-) (-) started this thread
 
690 posts, read 1,865,984 times
Reputation: 487

Advertisements

as in why do we choose to build UP as opposed to down? wouldn't it be more cost efficient to build subterranean structures than building sky scrapers? Heating, cooling, and shelter would all be better if development were focused on building in the ground rather than above the ground wouldn't it? i guess we have a need for light or some sort of attachment to being close to the heavens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2011, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
5,888 posts, read 13,008,662 times
Reputation: 3974
Because we are afraid of Morlocks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,138 posts, read 22,815,703 times
Reputation: 14116
Because digging a skyscraper sized hole is more expensive and problematic than building a skyscraper? Consider now how the basements and subways of NYC are only kept dry by constant pumping; how would that work exactly if the whole city was underground?

Plus it's hard to show off if your house, office, public building, ect. when it's underground. Architecture is as much a display of wealth, power, reliability, worthiness and so forth as it is a shelter from the elements. Morlocks are kind of a drag too...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 10:24 AM
 
57 posts, read 75,573 times
Reputation: 101
You're kidding, right? Most of the houses where I live don't even have basements because of the expense of rock removal. Average depth to solid bedrock here runs between about 18" and four feet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 11:05 AM
 
Location: now nyc
1,456 posts, read 4,329,884 times
Reputation: 1291
If there's a Earthquake than cross your fingers!

I would imagine the whole place could collapse into each other if there was an earthquake and the underground structure was deep enough

Last edited by LongIslandPerson; 07-11-2011 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 11:41 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,868 posts, read 12,562,134 times
Reputation: 2604
1. Construction cost

2. Drainage

3. Ventilation

4. Natural light
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 12:39 PM
(-) (-) started this thread
 
690 posts, read 1,865,984 times
Reputation: 487
given all the replies, logically they make sense however, what area of the US would it be more logical for underground dwelling?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:03 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,868 posts, read 12,562,134 times
Reputation: 2604
Quote:
Originally Posted by (-) View Post
given all the replies, logically they make sense however, what area of the US would it be more logical for underground dwelling?
places where heating and AC are larger costs, where drainage isnt an issue, and where the ground is suitable. Id guess some desert and semi-desert areas. IIUC some passive solar houses built in such areas ARE partly below ground. Thats different from building DEEP underground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,016 posts, read 12,578,968 times
Reputation: 9030
There is an area out in the Australian outback where the people live in old Opal mines. I've seen pictures of the dwellings and they are very cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 10:33 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,728 posts, read 15,760,072 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
Because digging a skyscraper sized hole is more expensive and problematic than building a skyscraper? Consider now how the basements and subways of NYC are only kept dry by constant pumping; how would that work exactly if the whole city was underground?

Plus it's hard to show off if your house, office, public building, ect. when it's underground. Architecture is as much a display of wealth, power, reliability, worthiness and so forth as it is a shelter from the elements. Morlocks are kind of a drag too...
DC metro stations are way deeper than NYC and they are spick and span with dry stations and no leaking. I was just in NYC and wow do they need to refurbish those stations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top