The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

Costs of excavation (especialling tunneling for roads $$$).
Somewhere to put the spoil.
Very large amounts of concrete used.
Vulnerability to flooding.

Earth sheltered housing has a lot going for it - but will be the option
of the well off - can't be done for the price of starter homes.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?


This has been suggested as an approach to dealing with much higher
population levels in future. You can have much higher density housing
below the surface yet retain a green countryside appearance above. You
can have fields orchards and houses occupying the same space. If on
todays housing estates houses occupy 1/3 or 1/4 the area, undergruond
they could occupy almost 100%, tripling or quadrupling density.

The biggest problem is cost. Building a house underground requires a
far stronger structure than one on the ground. There are also
additional costs such as soundproofing for houses under roads,
drainage, fire escapes, climate control, etc.

The requirement for window area also means that above ground wont be
clutter free, and cant be used like a ploughed field. It can however be
used for some growing applications.

The inability to look out the window is very undesirable to most
people, though periscope windows are a possibility.

Tunnels are vastly more expensive than surface roads, and having roads
on the surface with houses underground would support far more
population than all on top as now. In the distant future, as populatoin
rises even more, roads underground might become desirable too. Such
roadways could be on a different level than the housing, so one could
have separate fully packed layers of roads, housing, factories, and
basic services.

Lets say (havent checked figures now, just ballparking) that 5% of
British land is built on, and out of that the house occupies 33% of
that land. Converting to underground housing on 2 storeys would then
give us an increase in total housing area of around 60 times the
present house area.

Nearly everything comes down to cost in the end, and the cost of doing
this today on a mass scale is prohibitive. Its also not well enough
accepted to support good sale prices for such properties. It also
brings more disadvantage than advantage in reality, though when
populations are 50x as large it may be the other way round.


NT

wrote:

Costs of excavation (especialling tunneling for roads $$$).
Somewhere to put the spoil.

If its done as a one off house, yes it costs, though jcbs make that not
excessive any more. But if it were done en masse, one would only need
to excavate a foot or so, build the layer of housing then put the soil
on top of them. The ground level would become higher. More concrete
would be required to support a foot of earth on the roof, but not as
much more as sinking just one house would need. Also with no exterior
walls on dense housing there would be no need for brickwork, poured and
block walls would be the standard, saving on brickwork.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

Cons
====

o Damp/drainage.
o Radon, and other heavier than air poisonous and toxic gases.
o Sewerage and waste water disposal becomes more difficult. Either
considerably deeper, and therefore more expensive, or widespread use of
S*n*f*o*s. Oh joy.
o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.

Cheers,

Sid

wrote:
Costs of excavation (especialling tunneling for roads $$$).

Mmm. excavating foundations wasn;t that hard here..

Somewhere to put the spoil.

I had considered that you would put that back on top...

Very large amounts of concrete used.

Mmm. Thats a good point isn;t it?

Vulnerability to flooding.

Not with huger sewers ^H^H^H^H^H roads underneath...;-)

Earth sheltered housing has a lot going for it - but will be the option
of the well off - can't be done for the price of starter homes.


OK. lets look at it another way. Suppose you took a blockwork house and
simply covered it over with soil? I accept the construction would need
to be a bit more robust than for a plastic roof tile..e.g. prefab
concrete beams..and a DPM all round etc..but drainage is not an issue
provided that there is somewhere lower to drain TO.


I am thinking of a half cylinder made of say prestressed beams - like a
tube tunnel - that stands weight well. All drainage is down the tunnel
base, and the think has natural air ventilation with hot steamy air
suing to a stack and heat exchanger and cool air being drawn in.. Light
pipes for natural lighting...even a big periscope for a 'picture window'

You could grow anything on top of it - nice and carbon negative
that..even fuel. Or collect water and so on.

The house would more be 'covered in soil' than 'below ground'

wrote:
wrote:

Costs of excavation (especialling tunneling for roads $$$).
Somewhere to put the spoil.

If its done as a one off house, yes it costs, though jcbs make that not
excessive any more. But if it were done en masse, one would only need
to excavate a foot or so, build the layer of housing then put the soil
on top of them. The ground level would become higher. More concrete
would be required to support a foot of earth on the roof, but not as
much more as sinking just one house would need. Also with no exterior
walls on dense housing there would be no need for brickwork, poured and
block walls would be the standard, saving on brickwork.


I like that. No external finish at all is there? No DG windows, woodwork
and paintwork.. Access to 'ground' level might be an issue with stopping
water ingress down the inevitable ramp..cattle grid and drain at the base?


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

You would certainly save on heating costs as the ground temp a couple of
metres down is pretty constant. In fact with all the latest gov. ideas
in underground thermal storage, it may not need any at all
john2

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?



First of all thanks for contributing some excellent points.

This has been suggested as an approach to dealing with much higher
population levels in future. You can have much higher density housing
below the surface yet retain a green countryside appearance above. You
can have fields orchards and houses occupying the same space. If on
todays housing estates houses occupy 1/3 or 1/4 the area, underground
they could occupy almost 100%, tripling or quadrupling density.

They said the same of tower blocks too..


The biggest problem is cost. Building a house underground requires a
far stronger structure than one on the ground. There are also
additional costs such as soundproofing for houses under roads,
drainage, fire escapes, climate control, etc.

Now, lets get detailed on that.

Does it need to be stronger? Some yes obviously, but I am not thinking
of a house 400 foopt down,. just 4 ft down..maintaining enough topsoil
to have an insulating and organic production layer above. Plenty of roof
gardens are built on unamplifed structures..

Soundproofing. Yes. I accept that, but the roads would be deeper
underground, and nothing proofs as well as soil IME..vibration, not
sound would, I suspect,. be a greater issue.

Drainage is not an issue..as long as there is somewhere deeper to drain
TO - and there would be - this is 'cut and cover' not tunnelling - I dio
not see a huge problem.

Climate control I feel is easy. 4ft of soil is going to be a damn good
insulator and a fairly massive block or concrete structure will equalize
temperatures hugely.

Heat exchangers and judicious use of insulation OUTSIDE the
structure..so that its both protected from soil movement and retains
good thermal mass inside - should make it almost free of heating needs
at all. Compared with the copious amounts of celotex and rockwool,. 4ft
of earth on a polystyrene block is cheap..

Fire escapes are definititely an issue, however climbing up a flight of
stairs rather than jumnping out of a window is no worse..


The requirement for window area also means that above ground wont be
clutter free, and cant be used like a ploughed field. It can however be
used for some growing applications.


That was never the intention. I envisaged say 6ft tall pipes with galss
tops..above 'peering' height for provacy..

And maybe perisocopes. Also top plant trees on top for further climate
control.

The inability to look out the window is very undesirable to most
people, though periscope windows are a possibility.


Is it? Most people today spend more time peering into a TV/PC screen
than out of the window, and in an urban environment I have never ever
had a room with a decent view outside of extremeley expensive hotels and
apartments I have visited.



Tunnels are vastly more expensive than surface roads, and having roads
on the surface with houses underground would support far more
population than all on top as now.

I disagree with the 'vastly' bit. All roads need some earth moving, and
a road in a cutting is more a problem because the spoils have to be
physically removed..the further they have to go the worse it is. In this
case however one is talking about digging a trench for the access roads
and the services and then piling the material on top of the houses.
Not very expensive at all..cut and cocver tunneling is far less
expensive than real tunneling - where every cubic cm of spoil has to be
removed out of the whole current tunnel length.

My vision is that the surface is the place where cyclists and
pedestrians and dogs go, and trees and parks and so on. The houses are
just underneath and the roads and shops are a bit deeper.


In the distant future, as populatoin
rises even more, roads underground might become desirable too. Such
roadways could be on a different level than the housing, so one could
have separate fully packed layers of roads, housing, factories, and
basic services.

Yes..I just wanted to identify the costs and major technical problems
with this.

The fact is that major city right now pours billions of megawatt hours
into the sky and general environment. Putting a city underground would
reduce all of that..any stray heat from streetlights would be trapped
within the complex and contribute to warmer living space etc, as would
proper heat exchangers on e.g. exhaust fumes..a climate controlled CITY
with an eco area on top seems to me to be almost a no brainer..

Heck, you could build one on Mars...;-)


Lets say (havent checked figures now, just ballparking) that 5% of
British land is built on, and out of that the house occupies 33% of
that land. Converting to underground housing on 2 storeys would then
give us an increase in total housing area of around 60 times the
present house area.

Nearly everything comes down to cost in the end, and the cost of doing
this today on a mass scale is prohibitive. Its also not well enough
accepted to support good sale prices for such properties. It also
brings more disadvantage than advantage in reality, though when
populations are 50x as large it may be the other way round.



I am not so sure the costs are as prohibitive as you might think.

However there would be extreme issues with making it a small scale
build. It has to be done on a whole neighborhood, or by a wealthy
individual as a quirky 'grand design'..what a Phd project for an
architecture graduate in conjunction with a civil engineer..design and
cost an underground city..



NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

I can't help thinking of David Essex as the Artilleryman in War of the
Worlds

We'll build shops and hospitals and barracks right under their noses -
right under their
feet! Everything we need - banks, prisons and schools... We'll send
scouting parties to
collect books and stuff, and men like you'll teach the kids. Not poems
and rubbish -
science, so we can get everything working. We'll build villages and
towns and... and...
we'll play each other at cricket!

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

Cons
====

o Damp/drainage.

Covered. Noit a serious issue i think..designed right=no problem.

o Radon, and other heavier than air poisonous and toxic gases.

That is a good one I hadn't thought of.

Hmm. Down to effective ventilation and monitoring then.

o Sewerage and waste water disposal becomes more difficult. Either
considerably deeper, and therefore more expensive, or widespread use of
S*n*f*o*s. Oh joy.

No..my solutiuon was to cut and cover and raise the average ground level
by say 50%..as long as the water course retained their places - usually
at valley floors - no problem with rainwater. Sewage is simply a matter
of running te sewers lower than the houses - as is done in london anyway
under the embankment - and puumping up to the works...thats standard
practice in any low lying aresa.

o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.

I think you should think that one through..carefully..I would say that
heat and moisture buildup, not cold, is the problem.

Been on the tube lately?


Cheers,

Sid

john2 wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I
feel that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep
down, the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the
gardens and parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

You would certainly save on heating costs as the ground temp a couple of
metres down is pretty constant. In fact with all the latest gov. ideas
in underground thermal storage, it may not need any at all
john2

I've mislaid my building regs, but IIRC a meter of rock is about the
same as 50mm of celotex..and so I guess 4 ft of soil would be somewhat
better.

No: getting it cool and dry and ventilated would be the problems - not
heating.

The message .com
from contains these words:

If its done as a one off house, yes it costs, though jcbs make that not
excessive any more. But if it were done en masse, one would only need
to excavate a foot or so, build the layer of housing then put the soil
on top of them.

Or, if you fancy a grand scheme, try this one from 1931...

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/...y-earthquakes/

Or this bloke from the 30s as well...

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/...ng-as-a-hobby/

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
o Sewerage and waste water disposal becomes more difficult. Either
considerably deeper, and therefore more expensive, or widespread use of
S*n*f*o*s. Oh joy.

No..my solutiuon was to cut and cover and raise the average ground level
by say 50%..as long as the water course retained their places - usually
at valley floors - no problem with rainwater. Sewage is simply a matter
of running te sewers lower than the houses - as is done in london anyway
under the embankment - and puumping up to the works...thats standard
practice in any low lying aresa.

Not quite. The average depths of sewers will be lower, so cost more to
fault find later. inital installation may well be the same as now, if
you are cut-and-covering.


o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.

I think you should think that one through..carefully..I would say that
heat and moisture buildup, not cold, is the problem.

Been on the tube lately?


Of course, it depends how deep you go - far enough down and the rock is
molten! However, at reasonable depths, the temperature is relatively
constant, and lower than the standard 18-25 degrees centigrade many
people are most comfortable at. Humidity will be a problem, although
ventilation will help.

The earth does have large thermal inertia, so to start of with,
moisture will condense on the walls like crazy, unless ventilation is
adequate. After lots of heat input, the walls (and floor, and roof)
will have heated up to a comfortable temperature. The problem then is
to avoid overheating (like the underground, as you say). A lot of this
is climate dependant - in a hot, dry, climate massive walls and sunken
homes are an advantage. In a cold, wet, climate, a layer of sodden
earth at between zero and 10 degrees centigrade against the walls of
your dwelling makes it No Fun At All. Hence, decent
isolation/insulation is required, otherwise you will be trying to heat
the groundwater. You'll be looking at needing cavity walls, floor and
ceiling - not a bad idea for drainage anyway - increasing construction
costs. You'll need to ensure the drainage does not get blocked,
otherwise the cavity will become a nice cold water jacket. Allowing for
reasonable access for this will start to get expensive. Most of the
water in the UK is hard water, so the drainage cavity will start to
fill up with limescale deposits - even more fun to get rid of.

Cheers,

Sid

On 14 Sep 2006 07:17:28 -0700, wrote:
| Most of the
|water in the UK is hard water, so the drainage cavity will start to
|fill up with limescale deposits - even more fun to get rid of.

Only in the dry South and East.
In the wet North and West water is soft.
Whichever a good cavity will be a must.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Some practical economics of getting it to work:

Greenfield sites are cheaper to build on than brownfield.

Flat land is cheaper to build on than not.

Low water table/low susceptability to flooding is good.

Moderately dense, well drained stony/gravelly soils is probably best
(sand requires too much proping of excavations, clay is unstable, rock
requires blasting and may trap water)

In city areas it would be more difficult to acheive compatability with
existing services and flood drainage as well as having a large enough
site to be economic.

Ideal would be an edge of town site for a new estate - somewhere where
there's a well-heeled population to support higher costs, and somewhere
with current overpopulation problems e.g Cambridge.

Better still if you can get greenbelt land on the basis that the
development will be largely hidden from view. e.g. Cambridge - North of
the A14

Given all the above, a cut-and-shut earth sheltered housing estate
might be economically feasable - especially if you can get a bit of
government assistance to pioneer it.

Gas, oil or solid fuel heating is probably out - unless it's open one
side, earth sheltered rather then underground houses. That said,
passive houses (no additional heating required) may be possible.

Underground roads require lots of forced ventilation. Underground
fires/vehicle accidents are a special hazard. Probably not worth the
cost as yet. Underground parking ramps would be a particular
flood-route hazard.

Whatever you do - you MUST get the nod from mortgage and home insurance
companies - without that, you'll struggle to sell any of them.

There's a need for continuous electrcity supply to run forced
ventilation - possibly battery backed for power cuts.

You would probably need to include an insurance-backed warranty that
the properties will be dampfree.

You might need to offer a guaranteed buy-back price to inspire consumer
confidence.

AIUI earth sheltered/underground housing - the concrete has to be thick
- as the soil backfill will sink and apply greater and greater
pressureover the years.

To keep concrete quantities reasonable, casting concrete against the
exacavation wall (and one sided shuttering) is undesirable as the
quantities are significantly increased. So double sided shuttering is
prefered, but does require a lot of proping if there's no convenient
pit walls to brace against.

Earth sheltered has the advantage of solar gain - and with good design,
the concrete mass to act as a thermal store.

Finally you will need a local authority that's keen to support the
project, and a developer willing to take an unknown financial risk -
when there's probably plenty of safer investments about.

Been on the tube lately?

The tube is heated by all the traction motors of the trains. The tunnel
air continuously flushed through by the trains themselves.

On 14 Sep 2006 05:46:34 -0700, wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down,
the houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and
parks on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

Cons
====

o Damp/drainage.
o Radon, and other heavier than air poisonous and toxic gases.
o Sewerage and waste water disposal becomes more difficult. Either
considerably deeper, and therefore more expensive, or widespread use of
S*n*f*o*s. Oh joy.
o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.

Cheers,

Sid

As a reference have a google for the cave houses in spain, around
the town of Guadix. Briefly, they are dug out of the local soft
rock (shale) and have walls *at least* 5 feet thick. A lot of them
are over 100 years old and are still "standing".
The first thing you notice is the quiet - there's literally no noise
except that made by people/appliances in the house. A lot of people
find that too spooky, or claustrophobic.
They also tend to have much narrower temperature swings: staying
cooler in summer (even in Andalucia, where outside temps. hit 40+)
and very well insulated in winter.

Pete
--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

Well, being a simple country boy, I'm up for that... or something similar
anyway:

double-dig urbania - and add a bl**dy great load of 'orse muck to sweeten
the soil

Regards,

Keith

PS Many thanks for your help with the my floor tiling question the other
day.



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The more I look at the average urban and suburban sprawl the more I feel
that actually what we should be doing is putting the roads deep down, the
houses just under the surface with light pipes and the gardens and parks
on top...Hobbiton? possibly :-)

What do you think are the pros and cons of this from a cost/benefit
environmental and general living feeling?

"Owain" wrote in message
...
...
Everybody buys houses with the "utility room" off the kitchen, so all the
clothes and linens get carried down from the bedrooms upstairs, washed and
dried, then carried back upstairs again. The house with an upstairs
laundry-room or even a laundry chute is a rarity, even though with modern
washing machines putting the laundry room next to rooms little-used during
the day would not be a noise issue....

I've turned my third bedroom into a utility room, but a lot of people do
their washing at night, to use off-peak electricity for heating the water,
so noise would be an issue for them.

Colin Bignell

The message
from Huge contains these words:

Also the town of Coober Pedy in Australia;

http://www.gluckman.com/CooberPedy.Australia.html

The summer temperatures and the availability of free opal
workings are the driver there. That and there isn't a whole
lot to look at, so the absence of windows is no big deal.

What? Scenery like this
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/new...-auscoober.jpg
not worth looking at? Are you mad?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Huge wrote:
On 2006-09-14, Peter Lynch wrote:

As a reference have a google for the cave houses in spain, around
the town of Guadix. Briefly, they are dug out of the local soft
rock (shale) and have walls *at least* 5 feet thick. A lot of them
are over 100 years old and are still "standing".
The first thing you notice is the quiet - there's literally no noise
except that made by people/appliances in the house. A lot of people
find that too spooky, or claustrophobic.
They also tend to have much narrower temperature swings: staying
cooler in summer (even in Andalucia, where outside temps. hit 40+)
and very well insulated in winter.

Also the town of Coober Pedy in Australia;

http://www.gluckman.com/CooberPedy.Australia.html

The summer temperatures and the availability of free opal
workings are the driver there. That and there isn't a whole
lot to look at, so the absence of windows is no big deal.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Take a look at the climate data for Coober Pedy he

URL:http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_016007.shtml

It's a desert. Subterranean buildings work well when it is hot and
dry.

There's an interesting set of examples he

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration. For an example (perhaps overkill) try:

"Before the house was backfilled, specialized waterproof roofing
materials consisting of 3/16" thick Bentonite rolls, 18" wide rolls of
Bituthane, a felt-like drain mat, and finally two layers of protective
1" thick foam, were applied. Bentonite is a clay-like substance that
will expand up to 22 times its original size on contact with water.
Because of the tremendous pressure of the backfilled earth pressing
against this roofing material, the Bentonite (which is covered with
industrialized rubber) is so tightly compacted that, if any water was
to come into contact with it, the expanding effect will effectively and
permanently seal the leak. Any water that does make its way down to the
roof will be absorbed by the felt drain mat and effectively wicked down
to the French drain system that completely surrounds the entire
structure. The two layers of 1" thick foam sheets serves as a
protective barrier to prevent sharp rocks from puncturing the Bentonite
roofing."

This is from "The Ultimate Secure Home" - which is simply earth
covered, and not subterranean. Full details are he

URL:http://ultimatesecurehome.com/secure_home_amenities.htm

Don't underestimate water's ability to penetrate where you don't want.

Cheers,

Sid

wrote:

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration.

The Viking farmhouses in Iceland were not underground at all and they
were built of timber, the later turf houses were also not underground
in any sense either.

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
o Sewerage and waste water disposal becomes more difficult. Either
considerably deeper, and therefore more expensive, or widespread use of
S*n*f*o*s. Oh joy.
No..my solutiuon was to cut and cover and raise the average ground level
by say 50%..as long as the water course retained their places - usually
at valley floors - no problem with rainwater. Sewage is simply a matter
of running te sewers lower than the houses - as is done in london anyway
under the embankment - and puumping up to the works...thats standard
practice in any low lying aresa.

Not quite. The average depths of sewers will be lower, so cost more to
fault find later. inital installation may well be the same as now, if
you are cut-and-covering.

o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.
I think you should think that one through..carefully..I would say that
heat and moisture buildup, not cold, is the problem.

Been on the tube lately?


Of course, it depends how deep you go - far enough down and the rock is
molten! However, at reasonable depths, the temperature is relatively
constant, and lower than the standard 18-25 degrees centigrade many
people are most comfortable at. Humidity will be a problem, although
ventilation will help.

The earth does have large thermal inertia, so to start of with,
moisture will condense on the walls like crazy, unless ventilation is
adequate. After lots of heat input, the walls (and floor, and roof)
will have heated up to a comfortable temperature. The problem then is
to avoid overheating (like the underground, as you say). A lot of this
is climate dependant - in a hot, dry, climate massive walls and sunken
homes are an advantage. In a cold, wet, climate, a layer of sodden
earth at between zero and 10 degrees centigrade against the walls of
your dwelling makes it No Fun At All. Hence, decent
isolation/insulation is required, otherwise you will be trying to heat
the groundwater. You'll be looking at needing cavity walls, floor and
ceiling - not a bad idea for drainage anyway - increasing construction
costs. You'll need to ensure the drainage does not get blocked,
otherwise the cavity will become a nice cold water jacket. Allowing for
reasonable access for this will start to get expensive. Most of the
water in the UK is hard water, so the drainage cavity will start to
fill up with limescale deposits - even more fun to get rid of.


You don't understand about insulation do you?

Cheers,

Sid

wrote:
Been on the tube lately?

The tube is heated by all the traction motors of the trains. The tunnel
air continuously flushed through by the trains themselves.


You don't understand insulation do you?

wrote:
wrote:

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration.

The Viking farmhouses in Iceland were not underground at all and they
were built of timber, the later turf houses were also not underground
in any sense either.

Góðan dag sigvald. Coming from .is, you ought to know.

However, as I understand it, there is/was little timber in Iceland, so
as little as possible was used in construction. The method, as far as I
know, was to find a low hill and dig into it, or failing that, just dig
a hole in the ground. This was lined with stone. The above ground
walls were made of turf, as was the roof, minimising the use of timber.
The house was not fully underground - more like half, and as the wall
and roof were made of turf, it would look almost as though the house
were just a small hillock. Possibly I'm confusing farmhouses, built if
timber was more plentiful, with pit-houses, but the principle of a
half-sunk (semi-subterranean) house holds. I'm certainly not trying to
say that long-houses were half-sunk.

If I'm wrong, please do say.

Sid

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.
The earth does have large thermal inertia, so to start of with,
moisture will condense on the walls like crazy, unless ventilation is
adequate. After lots of heat input, the walls (and floor, and roof)
will have heated up to a comfortable temperature. The problem then is
to avoid overheating (like the underground, as you say). A lot of this
is climate dependant - in a hot, dry, climate massive walls and sunken
homes are an advantage. In a cold, wet, climate, a layer of sodden
earth at between zero and 10 degrees centigrade against the walls of
your dwelling makes it No Fun At All. Hence, decent
isolation/insulation is required, otherwise you will be trying to heat
the groundwater. You'll be looking at needing cavity walls, floor and
ceiling - not a bad idea for drainage anyway - increasing construction
costs. You'll need to ensure the drainage does not get blocked,
otherwise the cavity will become a nice cold water jacket. Allowing for
reasonable access for this will start to get expensive. Most of the
water in the UK is hard water, so the drainage cavity will start to
fill up with limescale deposits - even more fun to get rid of.


You don't understand about insulation do you?

Apparently not. What specifically do you think I'm not grasping? I'm
willing to learn.

Sid

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration.

The Viking farmhouses in Iceland were not underground at all and they
were built of timber, the later turf houses were also not underground
in any sense either.

Góðan dag sigvald. Coming from .is, you ought to know.

However, as I understand it, there is/was little timber in Iceland, so
as little as possible was used in construction. The method, as far as I
know, was to find a low hill and dig into it, or failing that, just dig
a hole in the ground. This was lined with stone. The above ground
walls were made of turf, as was the roof, minimising the use of timber.
The house was not fully underground - more like half, and as the wall
and roof were made of turf, it would look almost as though the house
were just a small hillock. Possibly I'm confusing farmhouses, built if
timber was more plentiful, with pit-houses, but the principle of a
half-sunk (semi-subterranean) house holds. I'm certainly not trying to
say that long-houses were half-sunk.

If I'm wrong, please do say.

About housebuilding in Iceland you are very wrong, houses were never
built into hills or in a hole in the ground. Houses were always built
above ground to get rid of the rainwater.
The houses were built with wood in framework and the fronts were of
timber but the outer walls were of stone and/or turf and turf was used
in the roof.
Timber was abundant in Iceland when the country was settled (ca 25%
tree cover) and there was a usable timber supply until the 19th century
(augmented by driftwood) to enable buildings to be built partly of
timber though longer beams would have to be imported in the later
centuries.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration.

The Viking farmhouses in Iceland were not underground at all and they
were built of timber, the later turf houses were also not underground
in any sense either.

Góðan dag sigvald. Coming from .is, you ought to know.

However, as I understand it, there is/was little timber in Iceland, so
as little as possible was used in construction. The method, as far as I
know, was to find a low hill and dig into it, or failing that, just dig
a hole in the ground. This was lined with stone. The above ground
walls were made of turf, as was the roof, minimising the use of timber.
The house was not fully underground - more like half, and as the wall
and roof were made of turf, it would look almost as though the house
were just a small hillock. Possibly I'm confusing farmhouses, built if
timber was more plentiful, with pit-houses, but the principle of a
half-sunk (semi-subterranean) house holds. I'm certainly not trying to
say that long-houses were half-sunk.

If I'm wrong, please do say.

About housebuilding in Iceland you are very wrong, houses were never
built into hills or in a hole in the ground. Houses were always built
above ground to get rid of the rainwater.
The houses were built with wood in framework and the fronts were of
timber but the outer walls were of stone and/or turf and turf was used
in the roof.
Timber was abundant in Iceland when the country was settled (ca 25%
tree cover) and there was a usable timber supply until the 19th century
(augmented by driftwood) to enable buildings to be built partly of
timber though longer beams would have to be imported in the later
centuries.



some reconstructions showing the building methods at:

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti...urf_Houses.htm


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Bob Mannix wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

URL:http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/courses/arch140/2006/Documents/Lectures/PDFs/2006%20pdfs/04Lect_ThermalMass_GB_2006%20-%20slides.pdf#search=%22climate%20data%20guadix%22

Now there are examples of semi-subternnaean homes used in northern
climes: Viking Farmhouses in Iceland, pre-celtic stone houses in the
Orkneys; and even in modern times the Norwegians and Swedes do have
turf-roof houses, but subterranean houses where it is cool and damp
don't work well without a lot of expensive work to prevent water
penetration.

The Viking farmhouses in Iceland were not underground at all and they
were built of timber, the later turf houses were also not underground
in any sense either.

Góðan dag sigvald. Coming from .is, you ought to know.

However, as I understand it, there is/was little timber in Iceland, so
as little as possible was used in construction. The method, as far as I
know, was to find a low hill and dig into it, or failing that, just dig
a hole in the ground. This was lined with stone. The above ground
walls were made of turf, as was the roof, minimising the use of timber.
The house was not fully underground - more like half, and as the wall
and roof were made of turf, it would look almost as though the house
were just a small hillock. Possibly I'm confusing farmhouses, built if
timber was more plentiful, with pit-houses, but the principle of a
half-sunk (semi-subterranean) house holds. I'm certainly not trying to
say that long-houses were half-sunk.

If I'm wrong, please do say.

About housebuilding in Iceland you are very wrong, houses were never
built into hills or in a hole in the ground. Houses were always built
above ground to get rid of the rainwater.
The houses were built with wood in framework and the fronts were of
timber but the outer walls were of stone and/or turf and turf was used
in the roof.
Timber was abundant in Iceland when the country was settled (ca 25%
tree cover) and there was a usable timber supply until the 19th century
(augmented by driftwood) to enable buildings to be built partly of
timber though longer beams would have to be imported in the later
centuries.



some reconstructions showing the building methods at:

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/arti...urf_Houses.htm


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

Thank-you very much Sigvald and Bob - and that link is very
interesting.

The vikings certainly did construct pit-houses, as well as the type
shown in such beautiful detail in the link. A little Googling tells me
that they were possibly primarily used for textile making, rather than
as dwelling-houses. I guess I must have seen reconstructed ones at
either Ribe or Leira (both in Denmark).

Here's a (boring) picture of a reconstructed Viking pit-house (perhaps
better called a pit-workshop).

URL:http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/ausden/slides/repro%20grassed%20Viking%20pit%20house.html

And pit-houses were used in other cultures - see:

URL:http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/archeo/cvh/bc/v77-26.htm
URL:http://www.spoerlein.f2s.com/pithouse.html
URL:http://www.primtech.net/kiva/kiva.html

Sigvald is quite right about water ingress - the last paragraph of
Bob's link is telling:

"During a visit in 2005, I noticed water running out from under the
turf walls on the outside of the foundation. Water from the roof is
supposed to run in the channel between the outer and inner turf walls
and from there, directly into the ground, so finding water running on
the outside was an unexpected surprise."

Cheers,

Sid

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.
The earth does have large thermal inertia, so to start of with,
moisture will condense on the walls like crazy, unless ventilation is
adequate. After lots of heat input, the walls (and floor, and roof)
will have heated up to a comfortable temperature. The problem then is
to avoid overheating (like the underground, as you say). A lot of this
is climate dependant - in a hot, dry, climate massive walls and sunken
homes are an advantage. In a cold, wet, climate, a layer of sodden
earth at between zero and 10 degrees centigrade against the walls of
your dwelling makes it No Fun At All. Hence, decent
isolation/insulation is required, otherwise you will be trying to heat
the groundwater. You'll be looking at needing cavity walls, floor and
ceiling - not a bad idea for drainage anyway - increasing construction
costs. You'll need to ensure the drainage does not get blocked,
otherwise the cavity will become a nice cold water jacket. Allowing for
reasonable access for this will start to get expensive. Most of the
water in the UK is hard water, so the drainage cavity will start to
fill up with limescale deposits - even more fun to get rid of.

You don't understand about insulation do you?

Apparently not. What specifically do you think I'm not grasping? I'm
willing to learn.


That once upo to temperautire, 4 foot of wet earth or 8 foot of masonry
is as good an insulator as 50mm of celotex.

And in fact its a damned sight better as a thermal store.


Sid

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
o Careful insulation required, otherwise heating bills will skyrocket
as you try to heat up the surrounding earth.
The earth does have large thermal inertia, so to start of with,
moisture will condense on the walls like crazy, unless ventilation is
adequate. After lots of heat input, the walls (and floor, and roof)
will have heated up to a comfortable temperature. The problem then is
to avoid overheating (like the underground, as you say). A lot of this
is climate dependant - in a hot, dry, climate massive walls and sunken
homes are an advantage. In a cold, wet, climate, a layer of sodden
earth at between zero and 10 degrees centigrade against the walls of
your dwelling makes it No Fun At All. Hence, decent
isolation/insulation is required, otherwise you will be trying to heat
the groundwater. You'll be looking at needing cavity walls, floor and
ceiling - not a bad idea for drainage anyway - increasing construction
costs. You'll need to ensure the drainage does not get blocked,
otherwise the cavity will become a nice cold water jacket. Allowing for
reasonable access for this will start to get expensive. Most of the
water in the UK is hard water, so the drainage cavity will start to
fill up with limescale deposits - even more fun to get rid of.

You don't understand about insulation do you?

Apparently not. What specifically do you think I'm not grasping? I'm
willing to learn.


That once upo to temperautire, 4 foot of wet earth or 8 foot of masonry
is as good an insulator as 50mm of celotex.

And in fact its a damned sight better as a thermal store.

Aah! I see. Thank-you.

I agree completely that a 4 foot thickness of wet earth can potentially
be a good thermal store. How good it is as an insulator, I'm not sure.
I'm pretty certain a 4 foot thickness of dry earth would be better.
I'm sure someone (possibly even you) may have tables that include the
numbers comparing celotex, wet earth, dry earth, straw, concrete, you
name it. A quick Google gives:

"Dry materials are better insulators since water is a good conductor -
so dry insulation is better than wet insulation. That's especially
important with earth-insulated buildings.

Here are some very rough approximate r-values of materials per inch of
thickness:

Dry earth: 0.33 per inch
Wet earth: 0.05 per inch
Wood: 1.25 per inch (assume the same for cardboard - not the corrugated
kind but solid cardboard)
Fiberglass insulation: 3.5 per inch
Styrofoam: 5.0 per inch (use packing material or cut up a Styrofoam
cup)

So in order to compare a house wall with 3 inches of fiberglass
insulation and 1/2 inch of plywood siding (total r-value of 11.125) to
the same r-value of earth-sheltering, you'd need about 36 inches of dry
earth. Once the earth wet, you'd need 222 inches (18 feet) to get the
same effect."


The problem is that water tends to move through wet earth - having
heated the water up, it's difficult to guarantee that it will stay in
the same place, unless you take measures like enclosing the wet earth
in a water-tight membrane of some type. If it is not enclosed at the
top, heating it above ambient will mean you increase the evaporation
rate. Ground-water movement also means it will be replaced by cooler
water at varying rates depending on the environment. I'm not saying
you can't make it work, the point I was alluding to about needing
'decent isolation/insulation' was simply that you will have to take
special measures.

As an afterthought, here's a page from CSIRO, admittedly talking about
rammed earth

URL:http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2000/RammedEarth.htm

My, tentative, conclusion is that you would want to use something other
than just plain in-situ earth as an insulator in a subterranean home -
possibly your 50mm of Celotex.

Regards,

Sid