Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth News

Earthscraper Takes Sustainable Design Underground 269

Hugh Pickens writes"The 'Earthscraper,' a 65-story, 82,000-square-foot inverted pyramid beneath Mexico City takes a new approach to escalating megacity problems like population growth, urban sprawl, preserving open space, and conserving energy and water, promising to turn the modern high-rise, quite literally, on its head. The proposed building will be located at the Zocalo, Mexico City's major public plaza one of the few sizable open spaces left in the city of 9 million. 'It's a massive empty plot, which makes it the ideal site for our program,' says architect Esteban Suarez. The Earthscraper concept begins with a glass roof replacing the opaque stone surface of the Zocalo preserving the open space and civic uses of the Zocalo, while allowing natural lighting to flow downward into all floors of the tapering structure through clear or translucent core walls. The first 10 stories would hold a museum dedicated to the city's history and its artifacts. 'We'd almost certainly find plenty of interesting relics during the dig — dating right back to the Aztecs who built their own pyramids here,' says Suarez adding that the design incorporates a system of gardens occurring roughly every 10 stories, to help generate fresh air. One thing working in Earthscraper's favor is there are strict laws that prevent building upwards in this part of Mexico City, but no laws for building down. 'They will have to develop new laws to stop this from happening,' says Chief Design Officer Emilio Barja. 'I hope they don't [find the] time to do that.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earthscraper Takes Sustainable Design Underground

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Question: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:29AM (#38190816)

    While inverted pyramids are an interesting design, what're you gonna do with the million cubic feet of dirt from the hole you have to dig to build the damn thing?

    Lake Texcoco [wikipedia.org] might have some effect on that.

  • Earthquakes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:34AM (#38190876) Journal
    Mexico City has been hit by some pretty nasty earthquakes [wikipedia.org] over the years [wikipedia.org]. I don't know if this design would be at all better or worse, but none of the linked-to articles make any mention of it. On the plus side, you don't need to worry about swaying or liquifaction [wikipedia.org] - the structure is supported on all sides by bedrock. On the down side, the structure is supported on all sides by bedrock ... bedrock that is likely shifting inexorably around.
  • Good concept... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:37AM (#38190914)

    Good concept though for when we start colonizing other planets. :)

    Underground living spaces will probably be the norm on Mars or the Moon should we ever colonize them.

    Lower costs on keeping us warm in the cold of space.

    Of course- that is, if we ever leave earth before the Klackons destroy us.

  • by VitaminB52 ( 550802 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:40AM (#38190944) Journal
    Ground water will cause a lot of buoyancy for this building - how will they prevent it from 'floating' upward? Other than using very thick walls from heavy construction materials?
  • by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:42AM (#38190970)

    I think this idea has been thought of in many arch programs, however from a practical side it's a dozy. The cost to excavate, the cost to transport the soil, dealing with ground water issue, 100 year flood conditions. even though it is a pyramid the retaining walls would have to be monstrous. Plus if anyone has ever seen what happens to an empty in-ground pool, there is reason for concern. I would put this out there with the floating island concept.

  • Re:Question: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djsmiley ( 752149 ) <djsmiley2k@gmail.com> on Monday November 28, 2011 @11:58AM (#38191164) Homepage Journal

    And its not like a terrorists could cave in an underground structure or anything >_

  • by uigrad_2000 ( 398500 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:00PM (#38191186) Homepage Journal

    Reminds me a little of our library. I would be able to see it from my window if they had built it above ground, but they chose to go down instead.

    The legend of this decision lives on through a song about the Morrow Plots. As the song goes, "You Can't Throw Shade on The Corn!"

    The Morrow Plots [wikipedia.org] were built in 1876 as an experimental field for growing crops, and is the oldest such field in existence in the western hemisphere. It might not sound like that big of a landmark, but the university decided to build our library underground [ideasinspi...vation.com] to preserve it.

  • by Spectre ( 1685 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:28PM (#38191494)

    Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri) is built over and around a number of existing salt mines. Due to the stable nature of the salt mines (few earthquakes, water table is significantly deeper than the mines, etc) many of the no longer active mines have been converted to office space and/or climate-controlled commercial and public storage, etc.

    These don't go nearly as deep as the proposed building in the article, though.

  • Re:Question: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @12:35PM (#38191588) Homepage

    The earth moves. Go down and you have to support the sides of the excavated pit. Water pressure also builds the deeper you go. Here is a conundrum for you. Build a series of say 4 story building, fill the gap between the buildings with compacted fill, are those buildings no above or below ground level.

    Want to save space the put your buildings over roads. Roads chew up a ton of space, local roads, major roads, inter-county roads and interstate roads.

    So build major thoroughfares and in public transport say rail, build up the next level to provide local roads and local public transport. The add retail with foot traffic, then commercial on top of that and finally residential. So no major arterial roads, also become major linear multi-use buildings and the space between becomes parks and gardens. So a major road linking two major cities could accommodate millions without using any additional land area and put all those people housed in immediate proximity to public transport.

  • Re:Question: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by multimediavt ( 965608 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:05PM (#38191914)

    It is cheaper to build the first few stories up than down. But at some point, the cost of holding up more and more floors, structural integrity issues, wind issues, etc come into play. May be even visibility to terrorists for insurance purposes. Building down, the only cost is earth removal and dumping it somewhere. But the earth starts getting hotter, and ventilation, fire escape etc get complicated.

    Complicated is an understatement. Untenable is a better word for it, given modern technologies. As a person who holds a Bachelor's of Architecture and a good grasp of geology and civil engineering, there are far fewer problems bulding up than down, and getting rid of the "dirt" is, honestly, the least of your worries. The major obstacles are:

    • Rock, ground water and other topology/geology - got news for you, there's more than just dirt that has to be accounted for. I cannot tell you how many building projects I have seen go horribly wrong due to improper or incomplete geological surveys of building sites. They start drilling holes for concrete piles and all of a sudden, WHOOP, there's a Carst formation!
    • Ventilation - a garden every 10 stories is NOT going to generate enough fresh air; unless we're talking about a garden that is the size of New York's Central Park every 10 stories.
    • Seismic events - This is big one #1 - hard enough to deal with when the building falling down is a problem, bigger problem when you have to deal with being buried alive several hundred feet below the surface; do you remember how long it took to get the Chilean miners out? Imagine having to get out hundreds of people? All kinds of other issues with seismic events underground.
    • Flood - Big one #2 - whether the source of water is a tsunami or just general flooding due to rain, designing and engineering around this problem is going to be the deal breaker. You can't just put a giant drain in the bottom. The water has to go somewhere.

    No, I have been postulating that in order for mankind to survive we will need to move off the surface of the planet so it can be used almost exclusively to grow food as our population increases to beyond what we can currently sustain. The problem is the challenges of building underground are horrendous to overcome in a "green" or "sustainable" way. The technology to do it affordably just does not exist and may not for MANY centuries to come. No, folks, there was a reason we moved out of caves and started building things above ground.

  • Re:Question: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Monday November 28, 2011 @01:52PM (#38192516) Homepage Journal

    That is EXACTLY what was on my mind. TFS refers to the history of Mexico City. Well - Tenochtitlan was started out by some drugged up dude who was lost in the swamps. Something about a vulture and a snake telling him that this was the land of the gods or some such nonsense. So - there are buildings in Mexico City that are sinking into that swamp, already. And, now, they want to dig DOWN, into that vast swampy lake, and build an underground city.

    Maybe I'll research the people who are in line for contracts. An investment in water pumps sounds like a good idea.*

    *This is where some clown suggests that the outer walls are going to be waterproof. I point to the Hoover Dam, in which channels were engineered for the water that flows THROUGH the concrete to be bled off. No one, nowhere, is going to build a structure this large, that is waterproof. Hell, seagoing ships aren't even waterproof! They all leak.

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...