why don't we create underground cities?

What happens if there needs to be a mass evacuation?

What happens if it floods?

What happens if there is any earthquake?

What happens if the air filtration shuts down or becomes compromised?

What happens when trump putin and kim drop nukes?

>>8670454
what do we do now? just apply that underground.

>>8670463

Which raises my questions.

>>8670467
We've already made earthquake resistant skyscrapers, i think erthquake resistant underground accommodation won't be that hard.

What happens when aliens invade with giant drills?

>>8670454
That's you.

>>8670449
It's cheaper to build up and out than it is to build down.

>>8670505
/thread

>>8670505
that makes no sense. what about all the mining done to get building material in the first place? it's illogical to waste all that open space for just mining when you may as well build on site.

>>8670506
faggot

File: subway-map-manhattanb.jpg (233KB, 884x1844px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 884x1844px

>>8670454

>>8670516
samefag
>>8670506

>>8670511
You need to make it safe enough for people to live. Mines are not at all safe and not even safe for the workers. Which is why there's so many problems with them dying. Making them safe would cost an astronomical amount. Underground military bases are build in very specific places to minimize safety issues. Mines are not.

>>8670518

living underground is not the same as underground railroad

>>8670511
it does when you consider we're not living at the mines.

>>8670524
Safety is much the same.

>>8670523
>implying the us doesn't have secret underground military baces under every major world landmmark

>>8670449

>why don't we create underground cities?

Ease of entry and exit, psychological reasons.

Houses and towers and such are just artificial caves with the benefits humans want like easy access to the outdoors.

In priniciple a basement is nearly there. But true tunnel-fed underground cities outside of certain secret military installations and bases aren't common because it is expensive. Your architecture has to withstand compression and shear forces from all sides. Moisture and movement make wall integrity tricky. Things like sewage and greywater would have to be pumped vertically. Everything would require a forced air system.


Good example is fallout shelters, they are the studio apartment for future millennials

Living in a dirty ass underground city would remind me too much of The Matrix sequels and I would hate it.

>>8670449
Radon gas you twat.

>>8670668
That only happens in shitty American basements. Install a Radon barrier.

>>8670449
UIUC has an underground library. It's pretty cool.

>>8670489
My understanding is that skyscrapers are earthquake resistant because advanced materials can flex and bow without deforming.

Underground, your structure would have to withstand all the pressure from hundreds of feet of earth and direct seismic pressure. Your materials might flex and bow, but all that ground isn't going to.

Alright, here we go.

1. Structural integrity.
We can all agree that dirt and stone have higher densities than air. Earthquake-resistant skyscrapers are earthquake-resistant because they are mounted on bases that flex, dampening the vibrations and allowing them to weather the effects. If air had a density similar to that of dirt, than that base would do fuckall and they'd collapse. Dirt is not static. It shifts, compresses, flows. Even before you consider the effects of groundwater on an underground complex, it becomes apparent that you need lots of reinforcement to even begin to make it feasible. Which segues nicely into my next point.

2. Cost.
It costs you nothing extra to build up. There's no shifting air out of the way, you don't install drainage on the third story of your apartment block to stop the wind from eroding the walls, there are not extra precautions to take. Underground, you have to deal with all of that. Dirt has to be excavated and moved. Walls have to be reinforced to deal with both compression and shear forces. Drainage pipes have to be installed to alter the flow of groundwater, otherwise all that reinforcement erodes away. All of those things share one thing in common; expense. They are expenses you cannot skip out on without compromising the safety of the structure. Not that they'll be as safe as above ground dwellings anyway. Which brings up the next reason as to why this is stupid.

3. Psychological impact.
People like being safe. Things that do not feel safe; knowing that there are several thousand metric tons of dirt and rock held above your head by a two foot thick concrete ceiling that was poured by the lowest bidder. You know what else people don't like? Having to hop in an elevator and go up fifty floors to see sunlight. Stale air. Halogen lamps replacing sunlight. Lots of things, really. People are simply very smart animals, and animals like being on the surface.

TL;DR: You're a fucking faggot.

Because dirt is heavy.

>>8670449
>psychological reasons.
The same reason most people can't take isolation and containment. We need natural light and air.

>>8670839
>animals like being on the surface.

Terrestrial animals like being on the surface. Many animals spend their lives beneath the ground.

Also, halogen lamps aren't an argument. Everyone on 4chan gets their light from the inside.

>>8670891
>Terrestrial animals like being on the surface.
And we are terrestrial animals.

>Also, halogen lamps aren't an argument. Everyone on 4chan gets their light from the inside.
Coincidentally, nobody on 4chan lives in a massive subterranean metroplex. Gee, wonder why that is.

>>8670891
>Also, halogen lamps aren't an argument. Everyone on 4chan gets their light from the inside.
Did you just use 4chan as a benchmark for mental health?