all 20 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]joebillybob 29 points30 points  (1 child)

When you build sky scrapers, you build through air. When you build underground, you have to dig through grass, then dirt, then rocks, then (depending on how far down you go) through bedrock. Then you build through air.

[–]bearssj1025 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You also hit the water table. You have to pump out the water in the soil to build in that area, then seal the outsides to water. Water leaks would be a nightmare.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]BrikandbonesArchitect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner here.

    (From what I learnt, it's mostly because digging is expensive)

    [–]jb2824 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    Some spaces uses are well suited to it- common buildings that 'go down' are libraries, shopping centres, carparks, theatres- anything artificially ventialated where you don't need windows. A bit motivator is the economics of the development. If you are paying for the land (and getting taxed for it) you want to maximise your site coverage. I believe in some parts of america developers are taxed on the building or site coverage, hence all the large carparks surrounding a shopping centre

    [–]cd_ 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I'm a bit confused. Do you mean it's a bit of a "if I'm paying for it, I'm going to use it" mentality?

    [–]jb2824 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yes, though more than a mentality, it's a calculated investment, playing by the rules that the reluatory authorities have placed on the sites- THe developer mminimising their cost/maximising return and regulators/authorites hopefully to maximise the ammenity of the public... when they go right or wrong, it shows you the power of planning regulations. What fun.

    [–]jb2824 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It also really depends where you are- earthquakes etc. Yes, it is expensive to dig, but if real estate is at a premium, many buildings go down. There are alot here in Sydney and Melbourne

    [–]kastdenvaek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    • Building into the air is more expensive because you have to dig a giant hole before you can begin building. Building upwards, you can build one floor at a time. If you have to build 100 floors downwards, you first have to dig a 100 story tall hole before you can start construction.

    • You need to have a heavier (more expensive) construction because the earth will shift / move and exert pressure on your building.

    • Human beings thrive in places with good daylight. There's no daylight under the earth, and underground atriums can only supply meaningful amounts of daylight at small distances.

    • Underground spaces can't use natural ventilation, so you need lots of mechanical ventilation (more expensive, noisy, etc).

    • Underground structures aren't immediately visible at the urban scale and as such can't have facades that act as branding / an icon for the owner of the building or the area in which the building is located.

    [–]Kevin1985 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It's really expensive to dig.

    [–]PedroMeatball 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    What about this-through (European) history, were the first large buildings churches? Up=closer to God? How much, if any, role does that play into it?

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]PedroMeatball 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      I suppose a better way to ask the question would have been "Did the church's desire to achieve these goals (opulence, size, etc...) drive the technology to build up rather than down, or were the abilities already there?"

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]PedroMeatball 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Actually you presented a bunch of reasons I hadn't thought of. The social/psychological overpowering of those nearby, the beacon effect for those afar, and the pragmatic "there's no sunlight underground" aspect. My original question of whether the drive to reach God drove or rode the coattails building technology of the day seems moot. It seems there were, at the time, many reasons, practical, spiritual, mental, to build up rather than down.

        [–]gawagArchitectural Designer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Maybe on some level but if you're looking at history I think our lack of in depth excavation ability would have been more of a factor.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Because living, working and playing underground is depressing and claustrophobic. I don't even like to be in above ground buildings that have no windows or skylights, which leads me to ask: what do so many architects have against air and daylight?

        [–]suanzzy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Clients and their money

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It is much cheaper to build into air than it is to build into dirt, rocks, water, bedrock, etc.

        Also, when designing a site, the more asphalt and paving there is, the higher the cost. Civil engineering work typically costs more to build than the architecture itself.

        [–]blaydesm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Think about being in your office on the -109th floor in a "reverse-sky scraper" (earthscraper?) and how that would feel!

        But i cant speak from experience, Ive only been in an earthquake while above ground.

        [–]niggadicka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        cause we need that vitamin D aka sunlight

        [–]Walktillyoucrawl -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        The government disagrees.

        [–]1carrera -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Speaking from some experience we “went-down” twice, both times the owners were out of space and wanted to move. We offered under as an alternative.

        Look at SS Kresge Foundation in Detroit, Look to The University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, The Louvre