/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3078029]

Why are houses built above ground when you can put them underground? Nothing needs to change to the house, just have it below ground. It eliminates structure problems and in the event of a disaster like a tornado or hurricane, no damage is done. Not to mention you could put trees or greenery above your house.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3078032]

>>3078029
Cost. It costs more to dig the big hole.

[Anonymous No.3078034]

windows 7

[Anonymous No.3078037]

>>3078029
Cost of below ground house >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>above ground house

[Anonymous No.3078036]

Because you can't have windows, construction costs increase, and flooding would be more of an issue.

[Anonymous No.3078039]

Earthquakes.

[Anonymous No.3078045]

>>3078037

Only because underground housing is a niche market and people can be gouged because there's little consumer interest. If houses were all underground and someone wanted an above ground house instead, then the costs would also be higher.

[Anonymous No.3078056]

>>3078045

Umm, I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.3078060]

>>3078045
No. We're talking the literal cost of construction, as in the extra labor needed to dig the hole. And you would still have to build walls, so don't say that would balance it out.

[Anonymous No.3078062]

>>3078045
wrong. there are more structural problems involved in an underground house as it has to support not only itself but the weight of the dirt on top of it. not to mention it has to be waterproof, have a good ventilation system, etc etc.... not to mention DIGGING A HUGE FUCKING HOLE IN THE GROUND. no matter what you say, it will always be easier to build a house above ground. by your logic, if everyone rode the space shuttle to work everyday it would eventually become cheaper than taking the bus. how can you not see this?

[Anonymous No.3078068]

>>3078062

OP here, by underground I didn't mean meters underground, just as an above ground house doesn't start meters above ground. Have a nice sun roof in an underground house if it illustrates it better.

[Anonymous No.3078071]

>>3078068
Ok. So you have the cost of building a normal home, plus the cost of digging the hole. It is a significant cost, and this is ignoring demand and risk entirely

[Anonymous No.3078072]

>>3078045
No, building a house underground cost more. You have to dig a huge hole down far enough to include a solid foundation. You have to remove all that excess dirt. Materials are more expensive since you don't want moisture in the ground rotting your walls or critters burrowing through. So there are higher labor and material costs. Then there are the costs of flood prevention.

[Anonymous No.3078073]

>>3078068
still needs a bigger hole than a normal house. still costs more.

[Anonymous No.3078082]

>>3078068
you still have to take all the considerations of building an aboveground house and then some... there is nothing about an underground house that would make it inherently cheaper than an aboveground house, other than not having to paint it. With that said... I want to live in an underground house :)

[gunnergun !7cvF2kyGow No.3078099]

OP you are fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.3078125]

>>3078099
don't blame OP for trying to think outside the box. Although he didn't think it through very well, his heart was in the right place.

[Anonymous No.3078151]

http://35mm.instantfundas.com/2008/11/underground-houses-of-coober-pedy.html

[Anonymous No.3078156]

>>hurricane

Enjoy your watery tomb.

>>trees

Enjoy your house falling to bits as the roots tear it apart over the years.

Underground houses and bunkers are great OP, but you really haven't thought this through very well.

[Anonymous No.3078163]

I want to live in an abandoned subway station.
Kinda like in that game Hellgate London.
That would be awesome.

[Anonymous No.3078172]

1. It costs more
2. People like daylight
3. It is cold underground
4. Most people aren't stupid enough to live in disaster zones. Those that do are too stupid to consider an underground house, which is why they all live in shitty trailers and cheap wooden houses, perfect for withstanding tornadoes etc. DO NOT HELP THESE PEOPLE THEY DESERVE TO DIE.

[Anonymous No.3078187]

>>3078151
"Building a new home in Coober Pedy is much cheaper and quicker compared to conventional building methods. The modern homes aren't the deep caves that people imagine but are dug into the hill sides. The entrance is usually at street level, and the rooms extend towards the back into the hill."

point taken. however that is only applicable in this small niche of the world. the geology of most places would not make this possible elsewhere. Also, those houses look like shit, and look like they may collapse at any second.

[Anonymous No.3078193]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Have you ever been in a bunker? They are not nice places. Even the no-expense spared military ones are horrible.

[Anonymous No.3078212]

9/10

[Anonymous No.3078218]

Ground water can seep in and fuck up your shit if your water table is too high.

[Anonymous No.3078225]

someone make a list of pros and cons for building underground.
so far i've seen lots of cons but can't think of any pros.

OP wtf? enjoy your tomb

[Anonymous No.3078237]

That it is cold underground is actually a pre when you live in the dessert.

But in other area's there is the risk of flooding. Though in mountain areas you don't even have to be underground for your underground house

[Anonymous No.3078244]

>>3078237
But building underground in a desert is difficult. I lived in Phoenix, Arizona for about 5 years and never saw a single basement, even in the mansions in Scottsdale. The soil in desert regions doesn't lend itself to underground building.

[Anonymous No.3078247]

>>3078244
I mean a single basement in a house.

[Anonymous No.3078273]

>>3078082

energy consumption

[MES No.3078297]

>It eliminates structure problems and in the event of a disaster like a tornado or hurricane

You didn't take into account earthquakes. Also it is within human nature to live above ground. Fairly sure people would like to receive the natural sunlight in the morning rather than waking up to a light bulb. Making your way to above ground would require either an elevator or a ladder. Infrastructure provisions would be more difficult since you didn't take into account storage of cars etc. There's a myriad of problems that come with living/constructing underground.

[Anonymous No.3078314]

the only example of underground homes working.

[Anonymous No.3078330]

>>3078029
No natural lighting, better get some anti depressants.

[Anonymous No.3078332]

>flooding

[Anonymous No.3078716]

shut up. shut up all of you.

OP is right, if it were done en masse it would easily be commercially available to middle income groups onwards.

It will be more expensive, but not to the point where the price per sq. ft would dissuade future home owners, or by contra logic everyone will be buying the cheapest properties in the suburbs.

It can most certainly be commercially available. The hard part is convincing people to deviate from their comfort zones and ideals on home making.

[Anonymous No.3078726]

>problems
>problems
>problems
>all of which can be fixed by engineering solutions

it is possible and feasible to build underground housing. it is just not conventional and so there is little or no demand.

[Anonymous No.3078743]

>>3078716

Enjoy your flooding and enjoy your infestations and enjoy your inferior ventilation and enjoy your inability to add extensions easily and enjoy paying more for an inferior home.

I don't know if you've ever watched a home being a built but the standard suburban house can be assembled by a team of Mexicans in about three weeks.

Digging a hole would double that timeframe and require heavy machinery to be used on EVERY home, to say nothing of figuring out where we're going to put all this SPORTS STADIUMS WORTH OF DIRT FOR EVERY FUCKING HOUSE WE BUILD.

It would be prohibitively expensive, and it would be to the point where the price per sq ft would dissuade future home owners when they could get an above ground house for 1/2 the price.

That's right, I attached an arbitrary price limit. You will never get an underground house that is identical to an above ground house for less than twice the cost.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3078779]

>>3078743

you realise youre as retarded as a subterranean dweller telling another subterranean dewller:

>enjoy your above land home with all the BEARS.

as for the costs, you are also retardedly wrong.

>underground sewage? and trains? where are you going to put all this SPORTS STADIUMS WORTH OF DIRT FOR EVERY FUCKING TUNNEL WE BUILD.

if tunneling is so bloody expensive, no one would be able to justify building the vast network of tunnels we have underground.

you are bloody stupid, and i curse you with a plague upon your house.

[Anonymous No.3078786]

>HURR DURR, NEED A COST EFFECTIVE SOLUSHUNZ TO UNDERGROUND HOMES?

[Anonymous No.3078797]

>>3078779

EYE never said underground sewage and trains. You still haven't addressed what we're going to do with these mountains of dirt or how we're going to transport them apparently for free.

Have you ever lived in a town when landmoving is in progress? You're going to kick up a shitstorm of insects whenever you move that much dirt, leaving plagues and infestations in your wake. It's a goddamn public health issue as well.

Which makes your last line that much more relephant.

[Anonymous No.3078812]

because not everyone is a sick basement dwelling neckbeard like you go die in a fire faggot shit

[Anonymous No.3078824]

I'd actually love to have a house like that

[Anonymous No.3078825]

WHAT IF WE BLEW UP A BIG HOLE

THEN BUILT HOUSES IN THE HOLE

AND THEN BURIED THEM

[Anonymous No.3078840]

You are all idiots.
I'm going to have an underground house. Much better insulation.

https://raddblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/underground-mountain-home-vals-switzerland-by-search-and-c
hristian-muller-architects/
http://www.theundergroundhouse.org.uk/the_design.html
http://www.motherearthnews.com/modern-homesteading/underground-house-living-z10m0vau.aspx
http://stocktonunderground.webs.com/houseplans.htm
http://www.williamlishman.com/underground.htm

[Anonymous No.3078852]

I think building underground would have the advantage of insulation. You're not exposed to the elements, such as the wind or cold air. Would be an advantage when going against tornado winds or hurricane winds. You're also not exposed to the sun all day, so the sun can't heat up the vast majority of your home. An underground home would provide a stable environment so long as you do have proper ventilation.

As far as cons go... It costs more because you have to dig a hole and then reinforce it, since your house would have to bear the weight of dirt on the sides. Similar idea to making a dam. Reinforcement. Tree roots might be a problem, but they might also be averted with proper concrete. If you do have a problem, though, it'd be difficult to assess the problem. No windows, either.

Earthquakes aren't a problem for most people in America. Neither are hurricanes except for lower coastal areas. Don't think water would be much of a problem unless you were a fucking retard and made your underground home purely out of wood.

[Anonymous No.3078860]

>>3078852

>Because only wood houses flood

[Anonymous No.3078861]

>>3078840

That's pretty nice looking.

[Anonymous No.3078867]

>>3078860

I'm referring to wood rotting. And most of America doesn't deal with flooding either.

[Anonymous No.3078891]

Groundwater, flooding, the danger of collapse, the difficulties of good ventilation and pleasant lighting, lack of emergency exits (can't jump/ladder out the windows), radon gas, more stairs/elevators than are otherwise necessary, and most of all the fact that most people just don't like living underground.

[Anonymous No.3078890]

>>3078867

>http://ks.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fact-sheets/fs.024-00.html

>During the 20th century, floods were the number-one natural disaster in the United States in terms of number of lives lost and property damage. They can occur at any time of the year, in any part of the country, and at any time of the day or night.

[Anonymous No.3078906]

>>3078890

Yes, it can happen anywhere. But it doesn't, just like tornadoes. Earthquakes and wind shear can occur anywhere as well. And most costly doesn't mean anything. Just means it fucked over areas that contained lots of shit. Hurricane Katrina was the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history (I believe) and it only heavily impacted certain areas in a few states.

[Anonymous No.3078912]

>>3078890
>They can occur at any time of the year, in any part of the country
...for a sufficiently broad definition of "any part of the country".

High-altitude mountaintops, for the most trivial example, seldom flood.

There are low-lying areas that you know will flood, though it is hard to predict exactly when. There are areas where it's hard to say for certain whether it will flood in the next hundred years. And then there are areas where you know damn well there's no way it could flood in the next 1000 years.

[Anonymous No.3078938]

>>3078891
While there are difficulties to living underground, I actually sought out a basement apartment and haven't regretted it at all. My rent is cheaper, my utilities are cheap as can be, and I barely use my heating/AC. I put mercury vapor full spectrum bulbs in where the bathroom heat lamps were and I generally don't miss the sun during the winter.... I get my "basking" done while on the toilet. If I want sunlight, I just walk the fuck outside. There's only like a half a window for fresh air, but it does its job adequately. Coupled with my humidifier/air purifier, it's generally a constant 72-78 degrees F with 40-50% average humidity. All the ambient lighting is white or full spectrum CFL and the floor is hardwood, I've never had mold problems.

At least in my experience, underground is perfectly livable if you take the right steps to ensure that it's not a dark and stuffy hole. It also helps if you're located within walking distance of things like parks, bars, restaurants, shops, etc.

[Anonymous No.3078947]

mfw when I live in Norway where we don't have floods unless you live 20 meters away from the rivers.
And we never have tornadoes or earth quakes.
Fucking win!

The minus side is the cold in the winter, and that is why I want a geothermal-heated house in the ground, with soil as outer insulation.

Radon gases can easily be hindered by plastic sheets.
Just put there inside, or upon the concrete on the floor, and then put wooden floor over that again.

[Anonymous No.3078952]

>>3078947
forgot my face.

[WackaWacka !!52+UB7rNIYG No.3078971]

So depressing seeing people who don't know the fuck about underground houses or civil engineering coming in hear and spouting shit.

They're very circumstancial, and offer benefits (such as insulation, free heat in a lot of cases) at the downside of costs from added wall sizes and structural requirements. Despite the costs, expect to see them a lot more (in the UK anyway) - they're near the definition of an eco-house.

Regarding floods, you won't build one in a flood prone area. That's fucking retarded. As you can also tell, a lot of humanity is a bit dense for choosing to live in flood-prone/disaster areas, and people should only be there if they can afford the consequences.

[Anonymous No.3078989]

>>3078971
>expect to see them a lot more
No. The advantages of underground construction are not new. People just don't like living underground.

[Anonymous No.3079038]

>>3078989
>Hurr durr, I know what everyone else likes.
No one has been an example when it comes to living "underground".
And this image posted here (the oval one) is quite tempting.

[Anonymous No.3079050]

So, I heard you guys like to build your-own-underground -house? I think we can share experience on that matters

[Anonymous No.3079066]

>>3078989
I would love to live underground, it would be very quiet as well as cool during the summer.
I am a people.
Therefore you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.3079075]

Wait, what about basements? Wouldn't an underground house basically be a glorified basement?

[Anonymous No.3079079]

>>3078971
>As you can also tell, a lot of humanity is a bit dense for choosing to live in flood-prone/disaster areas, and people should only be there if they can afford the consequences.

Flood prone areas are found in land close to water and around the water level. This is because, before major irrigation, flood water was the best thing for crops.

[Anonymous No.3079091]

>>3079075
I think they would be considerably nicer than that.

[Anonymous No.3079096]

>>3078971
doesnt mention the cost for running air ventilation so you wont fucking die of toxic CO2 levels.

you are a fucking idiot, if you have ever been in an underground facility for longer than 20 minutes you fucking faggot you would realise how shit it is.

I spent 8 weeks inside a military bunker and i bet the cost to pump air in far exceeded the cost saved by heating. even when it is done most efficiently artificially circulating air is hella costly.

[truckerfag !!xXmBuWkIT3n No.3079099]

>>3078989
>implying you aren't posting on a board populated by basement dwellers

[Anonymous No.3079116]

>>3079096
>>3079096
Ok, if you look at some images of "underground houses"
most of them have atleast 30 % of their area in touch with the outside air (not soil).
You have vents on the windows as usual, and of course you would have a air ventilation system with a heat exchanger. Anything else would be stupid.

>implying you are stupid.

[Anonymous No.3079118]

>>3079096
Pathetic surface dweller can't handle life without sunshine

[Anonymous No.3079121]

>>3079079
Eh. Flood plains ate fertile because of continual silt depositing creating thicker soil horizons. Soil is just a valuable resource and that's why peoples live there

[Anonymous No.3079144]

>>3079038
>>3079066
>>3079099
Obviously I was making a statement of the preferences of a large majority, you idiots. Isolated counterexamples don't disprove it.

[Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM No.3079157]

>>3079096
A military bunker is not a underground home, it's a military bunker. The difference is that the military bunker is meant to be a practical defense against bombs and artillery exploding above while housing twenty sweaty men. A house is meant to be a place where you enjoy life and your spare time, the ventilation requirements and whatnot are quite different for these.
An underground home can probably survive on passive ventilation.

[Anonymous No.3079147]

I like this idea better than the floating/submerse cities.

Not saying the idea was good to start with.

[truckerfag !!xXmBuWkIT3n No.3079198]

>>3079144
U mad.

U mad because you're wrong.

If you broke housing down by type, such as apartment, condo, ranch, two story, duplex, etc., basement dwellers would form a large enough population to create reasonable demand when compared to the rest of them.

The problem is, basement dwellers don't buy homes. Maybe they'd buy basements if they were offered on their own.

[Anonymous No.3079349]

>This thread

[Anonymous No.3079355]

bitches don't know about my water table.

[Anonymous No.3079387]

You might be able to do this in the desert but anywhere with water is a problem.

[Anonymous No.3079404]

Cost.
Earthquakes and ground collapses
Floods.
Greater weight load on the house's exterior.


That said I'll still probably build one if I'm still living on this planet when the time comes.

[Anonymous No.3079426]

There was this guy in my neighborhood when I was growing up that had a partially underground house, and the part that was above ground was concrete, it was built into the side of a hill.

[Anonymous No.3079454]

>hurricane

enjoy drowning in your underground house

[Anonymous No.3079471]

CAN'T BELIEVE NOBODY MENTIONED RADON GAS POISONING

[Anonymous No.3079478]

>>3079454

Everyone gets hit by hurricanes, amirite

[Anonymous No.3079508]

>>3079471
>Radon gas is dangerous guise!
Plastic, it's a brand new product!

mfw when american don't have building standards that removes radon as a threat.

[Anonymous No.3079560]

>>3079508

Hurr durr

doesn't know that 54% of our Annual exposure to ionizing radiation in the United states is from Radon gas.

Doesn't know that after smoking cigarrettes, radon gas is highest cause of lung cancer.

Doesn't know that polonium, a radioactive metal derived from Radon gas is present in cigarrettes.

[Anonymous No.3079578]

ITT basement dwellers who want rest of world to match their lifestyle

[Anonymous No.3079617]

>>3079478
>missing the fact that it was quoted from OP in the sentence "It eliminates structure problems and in the event of a disaster like a tornado or hurricane, no damage is done."

[Anonymous No.3079627]

>>3079560
>Doesn't know that polonium, a radioactive metal derived from Radon gas is present in cigarrettes.

As I'm lighting today's first cigarette. Feels radioactive man

[Anonymous No.3079629]

>>3079560
>>3079560
Why the fuck do you bring up smoking?
I don't smoke, and don't live in amercum.
See me care.

Btw, please give me sources for that radon lung cancer bullcrap.

[Anonymous No.3079688]

>>3079629

"Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and is associated with 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths each year."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon

Radon gas source comes from the earth, so its all around us no matter what country you live in. However, the danger of Radon gas is the accumulation of it due to poor ventilation; usually in basements and attics.

[Anonymous No.3079726]

Sounds dangerous. What if it collapsed?

[Anonymous No.3079740]

>>3079688
>>3079688
1. Ok, the cancer shit seems legit.

2. Basements: The gas oozes through the concrete from under your house and into your basement... IF you haven't put up plastic sheets around your basement when you built the house.
Radon can't penetrate plastic. Of course do you have to tape/fuse the sheets together.
Above ground: Radon is a gas, but with its properties it will just go upwards because of heat (above air), so this isn't a problem if the basement is impervious.

3. You don't place your house where radon levels are too high. The emission of it from the earth isn't evenly spread.

>Everyone who lives in basements dies faster that others. hurrdurr.
Learn to build proper houses, americunts.

[Anonymous No.3079744]

>>3079726
An appartment block: Isn't it dangerous? What if it collapsed?