20th August 2007 | Draft
From Lateral Thinking to Voluminous Thinking
unexplored options for subterranean habitats
in dense urban areas
- / -
Introduction
Lateral thinking vs Voluminous thinking?
Conventional objections
Legal (and financial) issues of subterranean property
ownership
Preliminary technical (and financial) issues
Technical (and financial) issues
Potential marketing concepts or modes
Evaluation of economic viability and marketing
Evaluation of market segmentation
Environmental, resource and quality of life issues
Demonstration, research and testing opportunities
Time factors: urgency, anticipation, phasing
Examples and clarifications
Enabling technology breakthroughs
Enabling legislative and jurisdictional breakthroughs
Relevant industries, expertise and government authorities
References and links
Introduction
Much is made of the limited space available on the surface of the Earth,
especially for housing and especially in the urban areas to which people have
tended to move from the countryside. This form of "lateral thinking" has
been associated with much-regretted forms of urban sprawl and increasingly
problematic access to adequate housing in urban areas. At the same time the
urban sprawl has increased pressure on undeveloped areas, notably those provisionally
set aside as "green
belts".
The question explored here is whether there is already a case for "voluminous
thinking" -- or when such thinking may become relevant, if not essential.
By this is meant the possibility of progressive development of subterranean property,
in urban areas, notably at depths not previously considered, whether 100,
500, 1000 or 5000 metres -- or more
The issues relevant to the feasibility of such development include: ownership
of subterranean space, financial significance for the real estate market,
relevant construction technology and associated costs, continuing infrastructure
costs (air conditioning, heating/cooling, pumping, etc), associated risks and
security issues (flooding, earthquakes, etc), reduction of pressure on conventional
infrastructure (transportation, green spaces, etc), acceptability to various
categories of potential users, and symbolic significance (new frontier, etc).
Most people have never considered living underground. Therefore there is very
little awareness of the potential or of the real advantages and disadvantages.
However it would be a mistake to deny the extent of underground experience
to which people are habituated in major cities (lengthy commutes in subways),
shopping malls below ground level (eg Montreal). The Channel Tunnel is another
experience which no longer invites comment.
The purpose of the following proposal is to offer triggers to the
imagination as to the possibility of property ownership and development deep
underground. The question is how people would respond to unusual
housing options offered to them. As with any opportunity, the issue is not
whether it appeals to all, but rather whether it would be acceptable, if
not welcomed, by some.
As a marketing opportunity, it focuses on the challenge of ownership
of the Earth beneath any real estate and the opportunity for the owner to
sell this unrecognized resource now to
those who anticipate the capacity to inhabit such volumes in the future.
The intention is to shift from focus on costly subsurface structures to the
potential of low cost high volume subterranean habitats offering a significant
enhancement
of quality of life.
Lateral thinking vs Voluminous thinking?
The question is why no feasibility studies are undertaken on the proportion
of people (students, nurses, shop assistants, tourists, etc) who would be prepared
to live underground -- if costly commutes could be reduced to a few minutes?
Why is it assumed that housing requirements must either be satisfied horizontally
or vertically -- and never downwards?
What is the market
for such facilities? Clearly there is some bad experience with "high rise" buildings,
but lessons have since been learnt and other parameters could make "low
fall" buildings
viable.
What factors preclude reflection on subterraneran options, notably at a time
when some consideration is even given to use of orbital colonies or to those
based on other planetary bodies?
Despite the creativity associated with the process of "lateral
thinking",
to what extent is the latter implicitly associated with:
- urban sprawl, through avoidance of attention to constraints that would
evoke non-lateral solutions?
- unfruitful alternation between "right" and "left" hemisphere thinking ("lateralization
of brain function") and their polarizing political analogues, when more
integrative approaches are called for?
Given the (exponentially) increasing population pressures on urban
areas, any mathematically simplistic assumptions underlying "lateral
thinking" (and leading to radial expansion over the surface of the land)
will have to be complemented by the 3D geometry of "voluminous thinking" at
some stage!
There is an irony in the degree to which a society focused on "globalization"
should be constrained by what amounts to a "flat Earth" perspective. This is
also reflected in the constraints on more integrative configuration of disciplines,
strategies and values -- another connotation of "thinking globally" (Spherical
Configuration of Interlocking Roundtables, 1998; Future
Generation through Global Conversation: in quest of collective well-being through
conversation in the present moment, 1997; Spherical
Configuration of Categories to reflect systemic patterns of environmental checks
and balances,
1994;
Configuring
Strategic Dilemmas in Intersectoral Dialogue, 1992)
Current situation
In a presentation to the International
Tunneling Association (May 2005), the
President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
remarked:
In 2001 there were only 19 megacities. By 2015, it is estimated that there
will be about 60 megacities, most of which will be in developing countries.
Estimates predict that by 2030, 60% of the world’s 8.1 billion people,
4.9 billion will dwell in cities. These increases will place an enormous
burden on land use and will lead to degradation of land 2 and forests, loss
of biodiversity, and a decline in the quality of air. Against this backdrop,
underground space will be used more and more for housing, offices, warehousing,
garages and storage as well as for infrastructure in the coming years. These
developments will promote environmentally sustainable urbanization by conserving
energy, reducing air pollution and creating more open scenery above ground,
and thereby allowing cities more land uses options. [more]
As noted by Loretta Hall (What are the Characteristics
of Underground Buildings? subsurfacebuildings.com):
Some underground buildings are stereotypical bunkers designed to protect
people, computer systems and data, and physical objects such as paper documents,
photographs, and films. Most underground buildings, however, are attractive,
comfortable structures that serve many different functions. More than 500 nonresidential
examples in the United States include schools (from preschool to university
levels), offices, factories, warehouses, stores, libraries, performing arts
theaters, museums, convention centers, and athletic facilities.
The emphasis in what follows is however on the potential
for "subterranean" construction at much greater depths than is implied by
conventional understanding of "subsurface" construction and "earth-sheltered" buildings.
The focus here is on:
- construction at depths of kilometres below the surface -- rather than metres
- habitats stacked in large diameter vertical shafts rather than distributed
around large underground spaces
- construction beyond conventional surface-related regulatory constraints
- development approaches beyond the current business models of existing subsurface
construction corporations
The question, as with outer space, is how to establish appropriate distinctions
from a mindset dependent on what is effectively a "flatland"
approach to subterranean opportunities -- a "superficial" caricature
of "lateral thinking" where "voluminous thinking" is called for.
Conventional objections
These tend to focus on:
- legal issues of the ownership of subterranean volumes in urban areas, whether
50, 100 or 1000 metres below surface
- excavation costs (despite favourable locations,
such as chalk beds),
- drainage (despite pumping facilities, etc),
- air conditioning
(despite considerable expertise with large office complexes), and
- psychology (above all), and in the absence of appropriate consultation
to determine the possible uptake. And yet NASA and the Russians (with
European collaboration) are exploring the more difficult challenges of isolated
living in space and on a 520-day mission to Mars (Kelly Young, Volunteers
line up for simulated mission to Mars, New
Scientist, 16 August
2006). The possible development of underwater habitats has long been
envisaged (Marine Resources Development Foundation, Underwater
Habitats; David H. Szondy, Undersea
Colonies, 2007; Donald Cook, Extreme
Undersea Habitats, 2006)
There are various technical issues associated with underground office, dwelling
space, storage space and factories. Many of these have been addressed to some
degree: nuclear bunkers, mines, storage in old mines, etc
All over Japan, an underground construction boom has quietly gotten under
way. Many different kinds of facilities are being built: not just the underground
shopping malls that have long been a familiar fixture in this country, but
a host of other structures including art museums, electric power plants, and
dams (Going
Underground: Japan's Subterranean Construction Boom, Trends
in Japan, 1997; Letter
from Tokyo: Opening up a new urban frontier deep underground. Independent,
8 July 1998)
Legal (and financial) issues of subterranean property ownership
From the perspective of any conventional developer, the key issues are:
- who
owns the huge volumes of space open to such development under major cities?
- in the case of cities such as London, what are the subterranean implications
of leasehold over freehold for surface land?
- at what prices might such subterranean property be sold in
the near future, especially if very little economic value is attached to
it now by the current owners, and especially for property at increasingly
lower depths?
- what are the implications for mortgages defined in terms of land surface,
and the possibility of mortages for deep habitat acquisition ?
- for banks according mortgages and obliged to foreclose, are there options
for the banks to sell the subterraneran property to recover their investment,
rather than foreclose?
- what constraints are there on subdividing properties vertically for purposes
of separate sale, especially when they are not currently registered in the
surface-based cadastre?
- is it possible that the future may
see a run on property rights to such volumes -- whether 50, 500,
or 5000 metres down -- notably as a result of property owners seeking to
generate revenue from their previously unrecognized assets?
More generally, what are the business opportunities for development
underground --
for subterranean development at deeper levels?
In the absence of relevant studies, some objections focus on the legal implications
(in some jurisdictions) relating to:
- assumptions that ownership of surface property may (or may not) imply ownership
of the volume below down to the centre of the Earth
- assumptions regarding subterranean mineral rights as superceding the rights
of owners of surface real estate
Clearly such issues are necessarily:
- addressed in relation to current subsurface construction, notably for urban
underground transportation systems
- subject to very different legislative restrictions, administrative jurisdictions,
and facilities in different countries (notably the responsibility of state
versus local authorities)
However some indications of the principles involved may be derived from:
- Under the common law, a landowner owns not only the surface of the
land but everything below it to the center of the earth and above it to the
sky, as stated in the Latin phrase: Cujus est solum, ejus
est usque ad coelum.
In re Honolulu Rapid Transit Company, Ltd....:
[U]nless there has been a division of the estate, [the owner
of realty] is entitled to the free and unfettered control of his own
land above, upon, and beneath the surface. So whatever is in a direct
line between the surface of the land and the center of the earth belongs
to the owner of the surface. Ordinarily that ownership cannot be interfered
with or infringed by third persons. (Property
Interests in Lava Tubes, State of Hawai)
- The subsurface estate may be severed from the surface and conveyed separately. (Property
Interests in Lava Tubes, State of Hawai)
- The ownership of subterranean property is an issue in the case of
groundwater banking where the overlying owners of the subterranean
space beneath their property may (or may not) have a right
exclude non-injurious use of the unoccupied aquifer storage space beneath
their property for storage of imported water. Legislative clarification
has been sought to recognize that the subterranean
property is technically part of the overlying owner’s
property interest, but that it is subject to non-injurious invasion for groundwater
storage. A similar rule has been articulated with regards
to overhead flight and use of surface streams to transport foreign water
across private parcels. (Water
Transfer Issues in California, 2002)
- With respect to mineral rights, there is general legal agreement that ity
is proper to distinguish in the soil (en el suelo) the right of
property in the superficies (de la superficie) from that in the depth (del
fondo.). There is not,
then, the least relation between the proprietor (of the land) and the subterranean
matter from which any right can be deduced. Typically all mines are declared
not to belong to the owner of the soil, but to be governed by mining
laws. This from the moment when a mine shall be conceded even to the proprietor
of the surface, this property shall be distinguished from that of the surface,
and thenceforth considered a new property. It has been suggested that
any legislation which does not recognize two species of property, one in
the surface of the earth, and the other in its depth, would be absurd. [more]
- The law governing mineral rights is typically (in northern countries) determined
by regalian right, namely the right reserved by the whole State to dispose
of subterranean property as public property, independent of the private ownership
of the land which conceals it.
- The law governing tunnel construction, following appripriation of the relevant
properties may allow the surface property to be resold.
Of particular interest are the following:
- implications of existing commitments to a three-dimensional cadastre (as
in the case of Israel), namely establishment of a register of the real
property of a country, with details of the volume, the owners and
the value.
- the subsurface "boundary" defined by any such register and the
implication that below that boundary there is neither owner nor value
- implications with regard to potential resources, notably as understood
by mineral rights
- implications with regard to as yet undiscovered buried archaeological sites
- implications with regard to unconventional (traditional claims), whether
defined by custom or affirmed by treaty, expressed in terms of the surface
of the land -- notably in the case of indigenous peoples (Australian Aborigines,
Native Americans, etc)
- in what way debate about the legal concept of terra
nullius is relevant, especially given unresolved issues relating to
Antarctica and the initiative of Russia to plant a subsurface flag laying
claim to the North Pole (Russia claims North Pole with
Arctic flag stunt, Telegraph,
15 August 2007)
- the relevance of legal principles relating to "space property rights"
as clarified by the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which has been ratified
by 98 nations (and signed by an additional 27) specifically forbidding
property rights in space and claims by nations to such property
rights. The conventional interpretation of the treaty is
that no one at all can make property rights claims. (Sam Dinkin, Don’t
wait for property rights, The Space Review, 12 July 2004)
Relevant policy issues include:
- whether such development would enable younger people,
or the economically underprivileged, to get an early foot on the property
ladder?
- whether such development would reduce budgetary pressures relating to more
conventional responses to urban infrastructure (housing, transport, pollution,
etc)
- whether existing building regulations would inhibit such development
- whether such development would raise as yet unforeseen problems
for health and safety legislation
- whether "access rights" would raise issues distinct from those already
handled under existing provisions (for access roads, etc)
- whether subterranean construction and/or use should be facilitated by fiscal
measures
- whether the number of administrative authorities, claiming a degree of
responsibility or oversight, would inhibit such development
In some cases a deliberate government policy is articulated to develop underground
building, for example:
- in Moscow, Mayor Yury Luzhkov announced that
the city was going underground to solve the city's land shortage on opening
an exhibition on subterranean construction (January 2006). Vladimir Resin,
First Deputy Moscow Mayor, indicated that city
authorities plan to encourage underground development (5
June 2007).
- in Tokyo, the Governor of Tokyo, recently announced
that steady progress is being made in mandatory procedures to alter the city
planning scheme so that deep subterranean construction would be possible
(Shintaro
Ishihara, Development
of Policies Commensurate with a Mature City,
Third Regular Session of the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, 2006) [more]
- the northern half of Israel, where land is highly utilized, is one of
the most densely populated areas of the world. To enable continued extensive
land development, new options are being sought by the government for urban
development through more effective utilization of space both above and below
the ground surface (as well as beneath the sea). The subterranean space
is an assured source that is within reach in the near and immediate vicinity.
As in many other countries, considerable activity
is taking place in subterranean construction, with more development to be
expected, due to the solutions that it offers in the area of preserving environmental
quality and the quality of life in urban areas. [more]
In summary it would appear that distinctions should therefore be made with
respect to the following sets of policy issues:
- relating to subsurface ("earth-sheltered")
development immediately below the surface in contrast
with those applicable
to much deeper habitats
- relating to those (including tunnels) defined within any (three-dimensional)
cadastre in
contrast with those lying (potentially) beneath the lower boundary
- relating to mineral and oil rights in subterranean property in
contrast with claims based on other factors
- relating to water (aquifers) and flowing streams in
contrast with claims
based on other factors
Preliminary technical (and financial) issues
A primary issue for investigation is whether, or under what conditions, subterranean
construction is more economical (or otherwise viable) than construction of
high rise buildings.
It is of course the case that some cities might be highly unsuitable for such
subterranean construction because of geological and other factors. In other cases,
it is assumed that four approaches might be relevant:
- creating vertical shafts of sufficient diameter to provide "units" of
adequate cross-section -- one on top of the other; this implies the use of
secondary shafts for access lifts and utilities
- concentrating on vertical access shafts from which horizontal tunnels
would be constructed for "units" as required -- possibly a triangular
configuration of three such shafts with the units progressively developed
between them
- associating the subterranean accommodation with above-surface (possibly
high rise) facilities, where people would shift between "rooms" owned
below and those owned above ("high rise for sun,
low rise for heat")
- some combination of the above approaches
It is appropriate to note the range of institutions
and conference series focused on underground construction including:
The lst
International Conference on Geological Engineering (October 2007, Wuhan,China)
has as one theme: underground building technology. A 30-year European strategic
plan has been developed by the European
Construction Technology Platform (Strategic
Research Agenda for the European Underground Construction Sector,
2005).
Technical (and financial) issues
These issues can then be clustered as follows:
- Subterranean construction. In this connection,
issues include:
- relevance of traditional shaft mining technology, and the costs of conversion
required for larger diameter shafts
- relevance of tunnel drilling machines and the costs of conversion
required for them to drill vertically
- technical and financial feasibility in relation to subsurface geological
characteristics
- rock (Manhattan), chalk (London), sand (Brussels), etc
- subsurface water and the level of the water table
- vulnerability to earthquakes
- disposal of extracted material
- modular construction (security doors, secondary shafts, etc) to minimize
risk in the event of accidents or disasters
- adequate access to the surface, both under normal operating conditions
and in the event of accident or system failure
- evaluation of construction costs (and consequently market value) per cubic
metre of (habitable) space created at different depths
As noted in Depth
of the Deepest Mine (The
Physics Factbook, 2003): "Many problems
arise when digging so deep into the Earth. The most obvious is the heat. For
example, at 5 km the temperature reaches 70 degrees Celsius and therefore massive
cooling equipment is needed to allow workers to survive at such depths. Another
problem is the weight of the rock. For example, at 3.5 km the pressure of rocks
above you is 9,500 tones per meter squared, or about 920 times normal atmospheric
pressure. When rock is removed through mining this pressure triples in the
surrounding rock. This effect coupled with the cooling of the rock causes a
phenomenon known as rock
bursts, which accounts for many of the 250 deaths
in South African mines every year". In the deepest mines (~3.5 km) air
pressure is roughly 2 atmospheres.
The question is how such constraints might apply in the case of shaft habitats,
rather than in a network of tunnels, especially when possible use may be made
of the temperature differential between those depths and the surface as a source
of (geothermal) energy, notably when combined with innovative use of water
both for air conditioning and for hydraulically powered lifts.
- Continuing subterranean infrastructure costs. In this connection,
notably at increasing depths, issues include
- maintenance of infrastructure facilities :
- air conditioning, additional to experience already acquired in high
rise buildings,
- lifts, additional to experience already acquired in high rise buildings,
- drainage (water, waste), additional to experience acquired with
pumping facilities in mines and tunnels
- security issues
- preventive measures against accidents (fire, flooding, electrical failure,
etc)
- evaluation of continuing costs per cubic metre of (habitable)
space at different depths
An effort was made in 2005 to scope out the research requirements to 2030
by the European Construction Technology Platform (Strategic
Research Agenda for the European Underground Construction Sector.
2005). Significantly it sets
out the likely directions of technological and organizational changes
that will need to be converted into specific research programmes over the
coming years. Its purpose is to guide and stimulate all those interested
with the relevant research programmes, whether from a governmental, industrial,
social, funding, policy or regulatory perspective. However its focus is
stated as follows:
Our aim is to let free above ground space for the use of the citizens,
taking the infrastructures underground. In order to do that, Underground Construction
will be efficient, safe, with a complete social acceptance and with a minimum
impact on the environment.
It is appropriate to stress again that the concern in what follows is with
habitats -- of potentially lower cost and in greater quantity -- rather than
infrastructure alone, as envisaged by that research agenda. The study is however
extremely useful in clarifying many of the research issues, notably relating
to sustainability, as discussed below.
Potential marketing concepts or modes
These aspects can be considered with respect to quite distinct marketing approaches
or "modes", whether or not they are in some way combined in any marketing campaign:
- Mode A: Imaginative marketing of hypothetical property:
a marketing approach designed to provoke the imagination and elicit a financial
return in the process -- as with the market for gimmicks and executive gifts.
This approach has been notably adopted with respect to the "sale" of
land on the surface of the Moon and other planets, in exchange for which
people acquire a "legal title" (eg Lunar
Registry, LunarLandOwner.com,
Planetary Investments).
Whilst far from serious, this serves to orient people to future possibilities
by reframing their possibility of acquiring "real
estate". It may be compared with the sale of "real estate" in
cyberspace -- or of web "domains" -- which, as a business proposition,
have proven attractive to millions. Even more realistically is the
possibility for current owners of unrecognized real estate assets to sell
title to volumes beneath their property to those who anticipate the possibility
of exploiting it in the future. An ideal transaction on eBay --
especially for those with mortgage dificulties?
- Mode B: Anticipatory marketing: to the extent that legal
title can be correctly ensured, a more coherent approach could be taken to
the sale of subterranean property in the case where no access is currently
possible. This applies to the case where property at depths of, for example,
5,000 metres (or 10,000 or more) can be sold in anticipation of future access
to such real estate. This speculative approach has some similarity to the
futures market. It also has some similarity to the sale of land (in past
centuries), notably on distant continents, to those who might at some stage
travel there, possibly as pioneers. An aspect of this approach might be to
generate interest to a degree which promotes a speculative run on the acquisition
of such properties and the rapid revaluation of their worth.
- Mode C: New frontier: The enterprise would emphasize
the extent to which subterranean habitats represented a new frontier,
calling for a degree of courage and daring. Orbital environments (space colonies)
and undersea habitats have been tentatively presented in this way -- and
are the subject of high profile documentaries (and the commercial possibility
of seat reservation). It may be argued that underground environments are
more accessible to pioneering endeavour, especially if opportunities for
underground habitat construction can to some useful degree be framed in the
same way as cabin construction in wilderness areas by the pioneers of the
past. (cf Martin Fackler. Letter
from Tokyo: Opening up a new urban frontier deep underground. Independent,
8 July 1998).
- Mode D: Normal sale of real estate: sale of developed
subterranean property following the many formulae already developed for conventional
real estate (including time-sharing and leasehold). This might include the
notable variants of:
- completed construction (ready to move in)
- partially completed construction, where some rooms were habitable
but others required further work
- uncompleted construction, where owners would apply their own building
skills to completion, or even to extension of the space (a striking model
in this respect is the Australian subsurface town of Cooper
Pedy).
- Mode E: Demonstration marketing: restricted sale of property
for hotel and other facilities specifically in order to function as a demonstration
of what subterranean accommodation might be like, as a prelude to actual development
or as a means of marketing subterranean habitats (at whatever depth)
- Mode F: Tourism marketing: as an extension of Mode E
(as discussed further below).
- Mode G: Research: initially at least (and as
further discussed below), the economic viability
of such an initiative can be presented in relation to research on more general
and longer-term interests, whether oriented to space travel or to backup
facilities in the event of systems collapse on Earth. The range of research
themes points to the probability of interest on the part of various R&D
communities, whether academic or application oriented. Many would therefore
be of interest as themes of imaginative postgraduate study -- including the
economics of commercial potential.
Of relevance to any imaginative marketing strategy is that such options have
to some extent been prefigured in numerous science fiction scenarios with which
several generations are familiar.
| Indication of conditions of viability
of market approaches |
| . |
Research
funding |
Hypothetical
title to property |
Confirmed
title to property |
Access
to property |
Constructed
habitat |
| Now |
Mode G |
Modes A,C,E,F |
Modes B,C,E,F |
|
|
| Future (10-years) |
Mode G |
|
Modes B,C |
Modes B,C,D,E |
Modes D,E,F |
| Future (10-50 years) |
Mode G |
|
Mode B |
Mode D |
Mode D |
Evaluation of economic viability and marketing
The associated issues may be clustered as follows:
- Marketing: Issues include:
- given the golden real estate rule ("location, location, location"),
what weight would be attached to high proximity to urban centres, possibly
combined with ready access to green zones (especially if constructed
beneath them)
- impact of subterranean depth on purchase, rental or running costs
- whether the (rental or purchase) cost would be sufficiently attractive
compared to that of above-surface accommodation options
- whether the option would be attractive:
- as a primary residence (for students, urban dwellers, etc), and
perhaps especially for those with physical handicaps challenged
by access to surface facilities and transportation systems where
little provision has been made for the disabled
- as a secondary residence or service apartment (for workers with
an above-surface house elsewhere, thereby allowing more people to
live in distant rural areas -- over the weekend -- if they only had
a few minutes commute during the week)
- as a temporary residence, possibly in the form of a hotel (for
tourists, business visitors, etc)
- whether time-sharing options might apply
- attractiveness for facilities other than accommodation:
- hotels, convention centres
- restaurants, entertainment facilities
- warehouses
- offices
- educational facilities, penal institutions
- medical facilities
- Access to facilities: These need to be distinguished
from those already associated with high-rise units (with which they would
compete):
- access to parks
- reduced horizontal transportation
- access to medical facilities
- access to entertainment facilities
- access to schools
- "Subjective" issues: These need to be distinguished
from those already associated with high-rise units (with which they would
compete), recognizing that these issues will be assessed differently by different
clusters of people faced with the need to make compromises in their choices:
- Security issues and risks: accidents (structural
failure, flooding, fire), disasters (earthquakes), utility failure (electricity,
water, etc), crime (as evident in some high rise buildings) and terrorism.
Clearly there are aspects of subterranean habitats which may be
perceived as offering a higher order of security than normal -- as is
the case with the rising numbers of gated communities and the vulnerability
of high rise buildings to some forms of gang intimidation or terrorism.
- Psychosocial issues: comparison with "gated
communities"
and intentional communities; weight attached to claustrophobia (vs
agoraphobia) and the associated phenomenon of increased cocooning;
whether the values associated with "penthouse" high-rise
preferences translate in any way into the
"deepest" subterranean habitats. It is appropriate to note
that throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, more than 70
undersea habitats were put into operation, manned by aquanauts from a
variety of nations; new possibilities are under conditions (Chris Wright,
Sleeping
with the Fishes, 2007). Behavioural indicators from undersea
habitats have long provided guidelines for consideration of analogous
issues in space environments.
- Access to light: this is typically cited as a fundamental
issue, even by commuters who seldom see the light of day from their
homes, or possibly from their workplaces; the value of the proximity
of light and greenery (via an elevator ride) needs to be explored, especially
for those urban dwellers who otherwise have to travel significant distances
to have such experience
- Sense of well-being: such issues are discussed below
in relation to quality of life
- Symbolic issues: these can be fruitfully explored
from a number of aspects to which different potential subterranean inhabitants
would be variously sensitive or indifferent:
- a womb-like experience for those valuing the sense of shelter and
security offered by enclosure (possibly including some with autistic
tendencies)
- a sense of an especially "grounded" existence with a
special relationship to the "bowels of the Earth"
- environmental values attached to a reduced environmental footprint
- a daily descent to Hades,
and return, for those attracted to such
underworld
mythology and its psychosocial implications (Enlightening
Endarkenment; Persephone, Hollow
Earth theories, psychopomp, etc)
- religious and theological sensitivity primarily associated with
surface features of a holy land (as scripturally defined) in contrast
to a degree of possible indifference relating to volumes hundreds
of metres below with which there is no psychocultural identification;
such flexibility might opens up negotiating possibilities in situations
as the Middle East (notably in the light of the compromises made
regarding use of surfaces of the Holy Sepulchre by different Christian
denominations) [more]
- caricatures of such inhabitants as "troglodytes" and "dwarves"
(demonstrably a matter of indifference to the inhabitants of Cooper
Pedy, to cave dwellers of the past or of the 20th
century,
or even to those inhabiting earthen structures)
- caricatures of such habitats as "ant burrows" (of little significance
in comparison with caricatures of skyscrapers as "ant hills" or "termite
mounds")
Evaluation of market segmentation
The previous section points to the need for a careful evaluation of the actual
and potential market, depending on sensitivity to how the enterprise is framed
and publicized.
Beyond the purely economic factors highlighted above, and those relating to
greater convenience, of particular interest is segmentation based on culture,
tradition and personality type. To what personality types is such an enterprise
likely to appeal, and possibly to what age groups?
- younger generations because of adventurous aspects of the challenge,
especially at deeper levels
- older generations because of the security and potentially better access
to green space
- families with children, again because of access to green space -- but possibly
also security
There are also interesting issues in relation to those who have very little
possibility of normal access to housing and whether this proposals also suggests
opportunities for various forms of government funded "social housing":
- for the elderly with inadequate pensions, notably in the light of aging
populations in some countries
- for those of no fixed abode and obliged to sleep in the street
- in particular conditions of high population in developing countries (favelas,
etc)
Environmental, resource and quality of life issues
Various issues can be usefully highlighted:
- Energy requirements: A key question, relating to financial
issues discussed above, is whether subterranean habitat construction and
occupation can be achieved in such a way as to be either more economic and/or
more environmentally sensitive than surface construction, notably in comparison
with high-rise buildings. What indeed might be the environmental
footprints of such development? Careful comparative study is required
of above and below surface costs of:
- construction (especially given the opportunity of opening
up levels deeper than it is feasibl
|
