From Guest Blogger Chloe Taylor: Innovations in Underground Homes
Note: I love sustainable building design, but I’m not a gopher. Perhaps readers will be more compelled to go in this direction than I am. -ed
The housing landscape is undergoing a dynamic evolution, leaning towards green technologies, practices, and ideas.
It is time to dig deeper into the mountain of ideas and descend deeper into the well of inspiration: Eco-friendly architecture paves the way into a greener, better future.
Sustainable construction occurs underground and represents some of the most innovative and spellbinding concepts out there. While some people look up to towering skyscrapers, others remain with their feet on the ground. This is a chance to think outside the box, embrace a brave new lifestyle, and blend in with Mother Nature.
Light at the end of the tunnel
Underground homes are not exactly a new trend. In the primordial mists of recorded history, people lived in caves. In modern Iran, there are 700-years old cave homes carved in a rock formation that have very low energy requirements. These examples demonstrate that buildings do not have to stick out and block the sun.
In fact, clever dwellings are seamlessly merged with the striking scenery that surrounds them. Despite that, many people are still in the dark when it comes to these amazing subterranean homes. If you want to familiarize yourself with the whole concept, check out these facts about underground homes.
A rich and diverse landscape
Underground homes come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them, like cute hobbit holes, are tiny, pint-sized abodes that can be built for as much as $100. They’re off the grid but packed with most of the comfort you see in a conventional home. On the other hand, in Beverly Hills, we come across the stunning green-roofed home.
Nestled into the hillside, it is a true green sanctuary, snuggled up by over 130 protected oak trees. The list is long and goes on: Villas are hidden into the mountainside, small hidden lairs tucked under mounds of grass, lavish buried houses, underground echo homes, etc.
Taking shelter
Furthermore, people are returning to abandoned facilities. Missile silos, nuclear bunkers, and backyard and community fallout shelters have been given a new lease on life. The issue, however, is that these spaces are plagued by problems such as the presence of lead paint, toxic chemicals, and asbestos.
This is to say you might need to put in some extra money and require asbestos removal or similar decontamination services. I have also seen people going to great lengths and investing a pretty penny into transforming disused mines 1000km North West of Sydney’s hot property market.
Numbers game
This implies should do a thorough inspection to avoid buying a money pit. This is the main drawback, but the trick is to look beyond the upfront costs. After all, underground homes offer incredible benefits. In some cases, the architects are able to almost completely eliminate the need for cooling and heating.
Take the example of the earth house construction technique, which utilizes surrounding soil as an insulating blanket, a barrier which protects from snow, rain, extreme temperatures, and natural abrasion. At last, attention-grabbing homes like the one in the sandstone cave in Festus feature geothermal heating and passive solar design.
It is easy being green
There are indeed many ways to keep the energy consumption at the minimum. These new champions of green construction are most often highly energy-efficient and involve low maintenance. Even better, some underground homes have no carbon footprint.
For instance, former football star Gary Neville has a flower-shaped subterranean abode with large “roof” windows that flood the interior with sunlight. It’s also possible to collect rainwater, harness sunlight with photovoltaic panels, and turn green roofs into habitats for other creatures of nature.
In this day and age, we’re in a position to go above and beyond traditional homes and living concepts. Namely, underground homes heal the scars of their own construction and enable people to live under the layers of greenery witness the captivating subterranean splendor.
Many of them look like fairytale epiphanies but they provide tangible benefits. You may need to invest in equipping and remodeling them, but you can ditch furnaces, air conditions, and other energy-sucking appliances and systems. So, don’t miss an opportunity to escape grid dependency and commit to the sustainable lifestyle at its finest.
How much consideration has been given to the fact that the vast majority of us live in fairly densely populated cities where such construction would be impossible for most? If people move to more remote areas where such construction is possible, the population density in those areas would be too low to make public transportation possible yet people would have to do more commuting. That would make people even more dependent on private cars. It seems strange that those advocating such construction do not consider the resulting transportation problems. Before advocating such things, consideration should be given to just how practical they would be for millions of people.
Perhaps multi-level underground construction, such as 50 story underground apartment buildings, could make it practical, but I doubt that that will ever happen. Obviously that would make access to natural lighting impossible.
Such construction may be interesting, but I see it as impractical for most people and not necessarily environmentally friendly because of the increased dependence on private cars which would result.
There are fiber optic sunlight systems for lighting buildings
Craig,
Yes, there are fiber optic systems for lighting. But suppose that a window is about 3 feet x 5 feet, i.e., 15 square feet. To use fiber optics to move that amount of light from outside into a room would require that the area of fiber optics exposed to outside light to be at least 15 square feet. With an underground multi-story apartment building, it would be exceedingly challenging to gather and move enough light into the building so the lighting would be anywhere comparable to what an above ground apartment building would receive through conventional windows.
My colleague Bruce Wilson writes:
I have known some people over the years with underground houses and mostly found that the designer had not used enough insulation. Let’s face it, 50 degrees F. is not comfortable. The houses were passive solar, so they were warm on sunny days, but took more to heat than they would have if all the thermal mass had been insulated from the ground which acts as an endless heat sink. People often think of earth as insulating, but it is a poor insulator. Yes in the middle of winter it is easier to heat a 50 degree house to 70 than to heat up a house that is surrounded by 10 degree air but insulation can both keep an underground house warmer and help by eliminating condensation on cool surfaces. Studies have shown that well insulated and air sealed houses
(with adequate ventilation) have less mold and mildew than less well insulated and air sealed houses.
One of my favorite blogs is the Natural Building Blog. Most of what they talk about does not apply to the work I usually do, but it is
fascinating and educational.
A recent blog was about bamboo structures and the amazing things being done with them.
http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/magical-houses-made-bamboo/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)
One of the problems of building underground is that excavation is expensive, and holding beck the pressure of dirt piled around on and around the structure requires a much stronger and more expensive structure.
One sustainably sourced building materials is straw bales. Straw bale buildings are a great way to use agricultural waste to build highly insulating highly fire resistant amazingly quiet buildings.
A colleague Sigi Koko works in straw bale using earthen plasters and green roofs. http://www.buildnaturally.com/
Bruce,
In the northern part of the U.S., in earlier times practically all houses had full basements. That was because it was necessary to have the foundation go below the frost line and, if they did that, the additional cost of having a full basement was minimal. Besides the olde gravity hot air and hot water heating heating systems had to be below the heated areas. Sometimes people could not afford to build an entire house at one time so they’d build the basement first and put a flat roof over it. Then later, when they had more money, they’d add the above ground portions of the house. So, it would appear that that the cost of having a one story house underground might not be prohibitive.
Of course in areas where the water table is high, it would be much more expensive to have an entire house underground. Even in earlier times houses didn’t have basements where the water table was high.
In any case, I would not want to live in an underground house. I like reasonable sized windows out of which I can look! Surely I am not alone.