http://www.blippitt.com/earthscraper-inverted-skyscraper-builds-down-instead-of-up-video/

So yeah, I was looking at this and got into a debate with my colleague. He claims that Earthscrapers are a good idea because they are easier and cheaper to build. I don't know what he's smoking but I think that such structures would be more difficult and pricey to create.

Any ideas?

I think this is fairly obvious but:
I doubt they are cheaper, in fact I suspect it would be much more expensive. Also they are less space efficient than a skyscraper because you would need to use a huge area of site at ground floor level whereas skyscrapers can be slender and they can increase in floorplate size as they go up to minimize ground level footprint, like the gherkin does for instance. Finally how do you ventilate it? You'd have to waste a huge quantity of energy sucking air down from above somewhere...unless you had HUGE HUGE vents, which is a further waste of space.

very interesting idea, however, walking across a public plaza in Mexico city then looking down at 50 stories of nothingness might take some getting used to.

Walking around New York in the 1920s and looking up at 50 stories probably took some getting used to, too.

The earth that is removed to create the hole could be used for flood defences, civil engineering projects.

Ventilation could be provided by the void in the centre of the 'earthscraper'. This would need to be mechanically assisted, like in any large building.

The main expense would be that none have been built before, so there would be so many unforeseen problems, for instance - the weight of the earth pushing against the sides of the structure is immense even in buildings a few stories below ground level. The sheer piling and bracing required to keep the structure from collapsing in on itself from the weight of the earth would be extremely expensive and would be prototypical.

Then there's the heat down there!

So we're still left wondering. Based on the 3 responses is it safe for me to have the last laugh over my friend?

I want to be serious until I'm sure the fat lady has sung.

Also, just to avoid a shallow bump, the article got me thinking about a city that is entierly flat to the ground. Like imagine you're walking on flat desert land and you find out that you're walking over a 50 million strong city.

Inhabitants of such a city would have no reason to go above ground except for expeditions and excursions.

I think there is absolutely no reason to build into the ground. Buildings are always made for people to look at, take pictures and most of all to create a unique image of the city. Like PadArch said, ventilation would be a big problem, but for me there's something even more important - light. People don't take lack of sunlight very well. No matter how good lighting you have, it will always feel different than the natural one and you would need to illuminate each and every floor, almost all of the time.

So we're still left wondering. Based on the 3 responses is it safe for me to have the last laugh over my friend?

I want to be serious until I'm sure the fat lady has sung.

Also, just to avoid a shallow bump, the article got me thinking about a city that is entierly flat to the ground. Like imagine you're walking on flat desert land and you find out that you're walking over a 50 million strong city.

Inhabitants of such a city would have no reason to go above ground except for expeditions and excursions.

there's one thing I love about that idea: a CAR FREE city of 50 million! AWESOME!

Inhabitants of such a city would have no reason to go above ground except for expeditions and excursions.
http://www.tara-mediumss.com/zhangwei1.jpg

Every city has its own pattern, hard to forget the charm of each differenthttp://www.cx-7.info/g.php