Why build up instead of underground?

Why build up instead of underground?

Because then your buildings just look like dirt.

Sunlight, move less material, would have to relocate underground infrastructure

of the top of my head
1) it's cheaper to build up than is to carve out bedrock
2) concrete/brick/steel has very well understood mechanical stress, but rock varies from place to place and layer from layer
3) you need to keep walls and ceilings very thick, otherwise it will collapse and bury entire city alive, so you need larger area for the same volume
4) needs forced ventilation (CO2 rich air is denser than regular air, leading to suffocation)
5) people like (and need) sunlight
6) carving out large areas under cities may lead to collapsed buildings/infrastructure above (often happens with underground railways)
7) invisible, nobody get's the see your corporation's grand headquarters (Trump Tower is cool, Trump's Hole in the Ground is not)

unless you are living in state of (post)nuclear war, there is no real benefit to it

It looks prettier to some people, potentially preserves ecosystems better without completely intruding in it

I myself prefer the sight of buildings and technology than nature however

Go work in a windowless room where you have to walk through three windowless rooms to get there, for 8 hours and see if you like it. There is a reason the number one desire is a windowed room.
Building up isn’t super efficient either, the higher up you go the less productive space you get per floor and the more % of space you have to have for pumps and cables and elevators and support, etc. past a certain height It is only desirable if the city location provides tons of Human Resources that you have to make due with less footprint space.
Maybe improved tech would make certain things more desirable, like fake vr windows.
I generally do like the aesthetics of putting plants and trees on top of buildings. And things like underground roads have huge appeal, but are just stupidly expensive. It will never get made if it isn’t economically viable. Reread the last sentence, because math/engineering nerds have a hard time grasping that sometimes.

Really, an ideal modern city would be built with zero cars and a efficient people-mover system that runs 24/7. The problem is it’s neigh impossible to build something like that without it degenerating into super depresssing commie blocks that no one feels ownership to and everything is treat like a pubic busstop /toliet. Everyone wants individuality. I don’t want to make it sound like I am against citys, they are the most effect way for people to life, resource wise

The view.
Water table.
Dicksizing.

>neigh impossible

You sound a little horse.

How the fuck do the people get down off those helicopter pads?

>Why build up instead of underground?

Because building up is cheap as fuck compared to building underground. Like by a factor of 10,000 or more.

>and the more % of space you have to have for pumps and cables and elevators and support,
Elevators tend to be a major scaling problem. That is why Japanese companies are looking into making elevators more like trains in that you have multiple elevators in each shaft and bypasses for getting around. Area is very costly in Japan so scaling is very attractive.

grabidy

Cost associated with excavation when the ground is already full of sewage systems/metro rails/power cables as well as the added cost of an air-circulation system.

Most people are fine with the commieblock sort of shit though...especially when it's surrounded with services, parks, and the like. It's like a community, rather than huge gaping plots of land that remove possibility of decent public transport. It can be really nice, as long as you provide the space and services all together.

t. from a country with said gaping plots of land

air, drainage, mole people

I've done an advanced simulation for the idea you thought up and I have something you may want to see.

it's much more expensive with almost no notable benefits besides maybe "wow we could build a park there"

>dad was on architect on the Vulcania museum project
>he told them building a big hole on top of a mountain was a stupid as fuck idea since it would fill up with snow in winter
>they didn't believe him
>now they have to spend a fortune every winter melting and evacuating all that snow

>Trump's Hole in the Ground is not
Call it by it's name, user: The United States of America

Off the top of my head:
- expense
- flooding
- ventilation
- collapse

But there would be distinct advantages, also.

Building up is easier. A lot easier.

I lived in a basement apartment for a while. It was pretty comfy. I could see:

- dig a hole.
- drop a waterproof liner in it that extends a little above-ground.
- simple fan system on the roof for ventilation.

Did no one hear about French drains? I mean, they are French right?

have you tried doing that in minecraft
its dosent worth it except for storage

.

>zero cars
This is stupid. People will always end up with unique situations or destinations that will most efficiently be fulfilled via car. For the vast majority of these situations, an autonomous taxi system would work fantastically. Almost zero actual ownership of cars would remove nearly all parking lots, as nearly all cars would be on the road in use at all times except for repair. These could be replaced with more buildings, parks, and walkways.

However, there will still be edge cases or wealthy individuals who want to own their own vehicle and transportation infrastructure should still allow for that.

Hm, I'm reading that if you place an inverted shipping container under ground for a shelter you can drive a car over it. You have to do some work on the floor, though. So... Buy plot, dig hole, lay concrete/cinderblock/gravel foundation, drop in waterproof liner, drop in inverted shipping container... Fuuuug.

As long as the things are self cleaning.

Basements are particularly dangerous in earthquake-prone areas.

Yeah but there's a huge difference between the depth of a shipping container and a whole building. That's like saying you heard that if you tied a bunch of weights to an upside down boat you could breathe underwater. The statement is technically true but the problem lies in the scale to which you can extend that technology.

name one benefit to building underground that makes up for the ridiculously high construction cost and people living like moles with no sunlight.

why not kill more people instead of make more buildings? haha faggots

doesn't seem to lead to a real forum, can you please provide the full link when you reblog my reply?

The lowest vertical size is 8.5".

>name one benefit to building underground that makes up for the ridiculously high construction cost and people living like moles with no sunlight.
Quiet, cool in the summer, secure, private. Blast your electric guitar all you want, no fuckhead neighbor's rap music coming through the window. Doubles as an emergency shelter.

People and companies are already actively building apartment buildings and houses out of shipping containers.

Great enjoy your single story one room underground city.

Above ground

>How the fuck do the people get down off those helicopter pads?

With a helicopter.

>Above ground
And below ground.