Underground housing, underground businesses, etc. Would that be better for the environment + possibly save on energy costs? Also possibly safer in certain scenarios like tornadoes etc.

Potential issues that immediately come to mind are ventilation, earthquakes, and flooding. But it’s not like underground dwellings/basements/etc. aren’t a thing, so maybe those issues have been addressed in ways I’m not familiar with.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Do you want to suggest a measurement scheme in which underground building is cheaper? As is I don’t understand your point.

    • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Do you consider lifetime costs? Do you consider the value of biological services of an undisdturbed land surface and habitat? Do you consider the value of a lifetime of energy savings for heating and cooling? Do we factor climate change opportunity costs? Do you consider the disaster resilience of a subterranian building built once vs the multiple constructions of a tornado or hurricane built and rebuilt?

      Sometime what seems cheapest can be the most expensive.

    • Scott 🇨🇦🏴‍☠️@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      For a single family dwelling (or any structure that isn’t too deep), reduced heating a cooling costs could make building underground cheaper in the long run.

      For a large structure that goes deep, I doubt if it could ever be cheaper to building underground.