Hacker News Reader

Comment by cannonedhamster | Hacker News Reader

I'm always genuinely surprised that we don't build down instead of building up, especially when it comes to cities. Sure there are drainage issues but the difference in heating and cooling needs would prove beneficial. The only real reason I can think of is the risk of collapse, which we already have with above ground buildings. This would provide more affordable housing to those in cities themselves.

While it wouldn't solve the immediate issue it might mitigate some of the issues that cause the flight to suburbs in the first place.

View on HN

Light, and you gotta move all that dirt, and the view out the window is less than inspiring.

Though probably not what the OP had in mind, your rebuttal is moot if one considers what we (humans) do with deep pit mining.

Essentially, we make a huge tapering hole in the ground, with each "tier" being part of the roadway for trucks and other mining equipment.

Light isn't really an issue, except at the very bottom, but even it receives some light during the day. Moving the dirt isn't a problem either - I'm not sure where it goes, but the tailings end up somewhere (it isn't all consumed in the mining operation).

As far as a view? Well - if such a construction was done for housing, the tiers could be rows and rows of buildings hugging the sides of the pit, potentially looking out and over at other buildings across a large expanse - like looking out over a valley (if you've never been to a deep pit mine, take a trip to one sometime - it's quite amazing). With trees, plants, etc - perhaps water features and maybe a lake at the bottom - I think (in theory) it could be quite lovely to look at and live in.

It would be nice if the deep pit mines we already have dug could be repurposed, but the problem with many are the amount of contamination caused by the mining and other activities during the operation of the mine; I doubt it would or could ever be fit to live in. Some of these mines are backfilled with the tailings afterward, but not all.

That's actually a somewhat ingenious solution to housing tbh. You could also utilize the interior space for hydroponic farming, etc, which would create attractive greenery.

So light is an easily solvable problem as are windows. We can simulate views out windows with television screens that project the outside and the light with actual light from the outside using light tubes and bulbs. These aren't insurmountable problems. You also wouldn't have to worry about cleaning windows or breaking them, you'd have storage for vehicles already built into your top layers and you already have to move lots of dirt in building skyscrapers, but you usually can't build parks on top of skyscrapers.

I feel the same way sometimes, especially about parking garages (which IMO are an urban blight) but I believe the real reason is just cost. It's expensive to dig first, far cheaper to just build right there on the ground.

Even if the long term HVAC savings would make it cost-effective, we already know humans are all about that quick buck, save money now and beggar thy future.

I got claustrophobic just reading this.

I had the same thought and asked a building engineer about this. I don't recall the details, but he said that it is in fact cheaper to build up than down (albeit he was considering construction cost, not HVAC).

I'd say in many cities thanks to zoning we don't build up too.

Also what's not helping is public opinion that multi-story buildings (9+) are some ghetto projects, unless it's a luxury condos.

It's not only zoning; it could be foundational as well: Tall skyscrapers need a sturdy base to build on, the closer to ground level the better and cheaper it is. In New York, it's why Manhattan has the majority of skyscrapers - bedrock is essentially just below your feet. Other places have to do things differently, which are more expensive - like driving deep piles or digging deep sub-basements to reach bedrock, or a combination of both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com