Slashdot Mirror


Earthscraper Takes Sustainable Design Underground

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.'"

15 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Question: by markbark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could for example dump it in the ocean to create more land.

    2. Re:Question: by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm no civil engineer but AFAIK it usually is a lot more expensive to build down than to build up.

      Try digging a 1 cubic metre hole in the ground. Now try to build a 1 cubic metre structure above the ground. Which is easier?

      If it were cheaper, they'd do it more often - there are advantages - thermal insulation etc (and even then it's easier to build something low and pile earth over it, than dig).

      --
    3. Re:Question: by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      World's tallest building: 830 m
      World's deepest mine: 3900 m

    4. Re:Question: by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Question: by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Building down, the only cost is earth removal and dumping it somewhere.

      You're forgetting the water table.

      In a sufficiently large, arcology-type underground community, the water's useful and valuable. But you'll probably have to keep pumps running all the time if you don't want to drown or be smothered in mold and algae. Mines that don't pump, flood.

    6. Re:Question: by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the number of livable spaces for each of those?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:Question: by poity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's probably a big difference between "building livable spaces" and "digging mine shafts". Drainage and moisture control will be a huge challenge. And you'll need active ventilation (can't just open a window and let the wind do it), the cost of which would offset your heating/cooling savings.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    8. Re:Question: by avronius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are planning on building *in* a city, you will disrupt whatever space you choose to develop - up *or* down. If a lot is vacant, would it not be available for building in either direction? There are certain areas where a large amount of *up* is not an option (proximity to airport or public monuments, etc.), and those where *down* will be cost prohibitive (flood plains, bedrock, etc.). But, if you can use your available space in without resulting in public eyesore, why would someone care if it's above ground or below?

    9. Re:Question: by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Value of Minerals 3900 m in the ground?
      Value of Minerals 830 m in the air?

  2. geofront? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I just hope we don't find any angels while we dig up for those :p

  3. No Windows by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the things I hate about my current job is that there are no windows anywhere near where I am seated.

    I frequently go weeks in winter without seeing sunlight because it is dark when I get to work and dark when I leave.

    I find windowless offices to be very dreary and depressing. Only the economy keeps me in this dreary place.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  4. Re:Hope the power doesn't go out on those sump pum by mpcarl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem I see is that walking down stairs is pretty easy and most people can manage a number of floors without a problem. Walking up stairs is a different situation. Many people cannot walk up one or two levels, let alone the number of levels proposed. I think you would need tunnels from several levels going in several directions to escape platforms or safe rooms with elevator or crane access.

  5. You're forgetting the water table. by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No shit, Sherman. Mexico City is built in a silted-up lakebed. What's more, their sewage processing ... shall we say, leaves a bit to be desired.

    So -- how do they plan emergency evacuation of this thing if the pumps fail? Maybe during an earthquake? (Not like Mexico City has those, mind.)

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  6. Gonna need it for the fire, Umbrella Corporation by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Running down 65 floors is a pain in the arse. Running UP 65 floors to the surface is a whole other story!

    There'll be people hoping a sewage line breaks before they have a heart attack running up stairs.

    Stories like these come along every few years about underground building. And everyone says, "Gee, that's a good idea. Why aren't we doing that already?"

    Then you tell them about fires, cave ins, flooding, etc. and that good idea doesn't look so hot anymore. Christ, has nobody watched Resident Evil? You don't need monsters, you just need to lose power, lights, and air ventilation and you'll be have a nice uphill riot on your hands. Those glass walls probably don't work to well on a cloudy day or night down near the bottom.

    Let's just go ahead and name this the Umbrella Corporation building.

    --
    I8-D