Written by: Saram Maqbool
Posted on: September 09, 2024 | 
| 中文
Concept for the Low Line in New York
The more you look at it, the more it seems like the world is slowly entering the post-apocalyptic state that is often seen in movies. The climate is getting hotter than ever, water is running out, species are getting extinct, and natural resources are depleting at alarming rates. When all this happens, several of these movies and television shows depict people living underground, because the land is either inhospitable or there's just no more left to build on. That begs the question: how viable is it for architects to start designing and building underground? Could we seriously look into subterranean architecture as a way to save ourselves and the planet in the long run?
Brunel Museum by Tate Harmer, London, United Kingdom
The concept of underground architecture has fascinated humans for centuries, from ancient cave dwellings to contemporary subterranean developments. As urban areas become more crowded and environmental concerns escalate, the idea of expanding downward instead of outward or upward has garnered increasing interest. One of the primary arguments in favor of underground architecture is the efficient use of land. As cities continue to face spatial constraints, building downward offers a viable solution for maximizing land use without encroaching on valuable green spaces. This approach allows for the preservation of surface areas for parks, agriculture and recreational activities. A notable example is the Lowline in New York City, a proposed underground park designed to convert an abandoned trolley terminal into a lush, subterranean green space.
The Fangsuo Bookstore in Chengdu is an excellent example of underground architecture
Environmental benefits are another compelling reason to consider underground construction. Structures built below ground are naturally insulated, leading to reduced energy needs for heating and cooling. This can result in significant energy savings and a smaller carbon footprint. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway exemplifies this advantage. Built into a mountain, the vault maintains stable, cold temperatures that are crucial for seed preservation, with minimal energy consumption.
The Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway.
Underground architecture also offers protection from natural disasters, as these structures are generally less vulnerable to extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires. This makes them an attractive option in areas prone to such disasters. Underground spaces can also maintain the visual and acoustic integrity of above-ground environments, making urban areas more pleasant and quieter. The Copenhagen Metro system is a prime example of this, integrating seamlessly into the city and providing efficient transportation without disturbing its historic aesthetic.
A station in Copenhagen Metro.
However, despite these advantages, there are significant challenges and drawbacks to underground architecture. One of the most prominent is the high initial cost. Excavation and construction below ground are significantly more expensive than traditional building methods, which can deter both private developers and public projects. Even if the cost can be controlled, the psychological and health concerns with regard to underground living need particular attention. Prolonged periods spent underground can negatively affect mental health and well-being, potentially causing feelings of confinement and a lack of natural light. This, however, can be mitigated by getting architects and designers involved, who can create underground spaces with access to nature. I'm not suggesting for a second that we should start building bunkers underneath the surface, but rather think about how to build underground while maintaining somewhat of a connection with nature.
Technical challenges are another critical issue. Building underground requires overcoming numerous engineering obstacles, including water seepage, ventilation and ensuring structural stability. These complexities often lead to increased maintenance costs and potential safety hazards. On top of that, digging into the earth can significantly disrupt ecosystems, so it's not as environmentally-friendly as one would like to believe. For example, the construction of the Gotthard Base Tunnel in Switzerland, the world's longest railway and deepest traffic tunnel, had to navigate delicate alpine ecosystems and substantial geological challenges.
Sedrun multifunction station viewed from the control cab of a Gottardino train
So, do we start building underground in an attempt to slow down the damage human presence is causing the world? Will it actually help in any significant way, even if we do find ways to make it cheaper and less destructive to certain ecosystems? These are questions that must be asked if we are to begin a change in how we approach the development of the built environment. While there are clear benefits in terms of efficient land use, environmental advantages, and disaster protection, these must be weighed against the high costs, psychological effects, technical difficulties and environmental impacts. As urban populations grow and environmental issues become more pressing, the debate over underground construction is likely to intensify. The future of this intriguing architectural frontier will depend on advancements in technology, engineering and a nuanced understanding of the various trade-offs involved.
You may also like:
