Groundscrapers

[Action]

what do you think of skyscrapers that runs hundreds of meters underground instead of above ground?

[syedahsaninam]

I don't know much about any "GroundScraper", or never even heard it in my life before, but I know the london tube goes really deep.

image hosted on flickr

[tijuano en el df]

i've heard about carbon mines that go 300 meters into the ground

[Ribarca]

I don't think any of those exist. It would not be very energy efficient.

When I think of a groundscraper I think of a building that represents a skyscraper on its side like this one from Moneo.

image hosted on flickr

[_00_deathscar]

Originally Posted by Ribarca

When I think of a groundscraper I think of a building that represents a skyscraper on its side like this one from Moneo.

image hosted on flickr

Yea, same here.

I wonder if there is a Groundscrapercity.com...

[ainttelling]

Neat groundscraper in India:

image hosted on flickr


Rani-ki-vav - Patan, Gujarat - c. 1050 - [Source]

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

I agree. Groundscrapers are long, low buildings, usually found in suburban areas. Where I live, there's a lot of huge distribution centers, which I would think fit that description.

I've heard the term "geofront" applied to the concept of a deep, multilevel underground building. Perhaps "Corescraper" would be a more poetic term... the real opposite of a skyscraper.

[dachacon]

Originally Posted by Ribarca

I don't think any of those exist. It would not be very energy efficient.

on the contrary it would be very energy efficient. the temperature underground is very constant, around 55 degrees i believe, contrary to above ground tempatures that can swing from very hot temperatures to very cold temperatures causing the use of air conditioners and heaters. all you need really is a ventilation system to keep the air fresh. the biggest energy usage would be for lighting because there is no natural light. but with CFL's and LED's the cost of lighting rooms will be minimal.

[ainttelling]

Originally Posted by QuarterMileSidewalk

I agree. Groundscrapers are long, low buildings, usually found in suburban areas. Where I live, there's a lot of huge distribution centers, which I would think fit that description.

I've heard the term "geofront" applied to the concept of a deep, multilevel underground building. Perhaps "Corescraper" would be a more poetic term... the real opposite of a skyscraper.

I propose to consider "lithoscraper"!

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

Originally Posted by dachacon

on the contrary it would be very energy efficient. the temperature underground is very constant, around 55 degrees i believe, contrary to above ground tempatures that can swing from very hot temperatures to very cold temperatures causing the use of air conditioners and heaters. all you need really is a ventilation system to keep the air fresh. the biggest energy usage would be for lighting because there is no natural light. but with CFL's and LED's the cost of lighting rooms will be minimal.

I agree... the only thing, though, is the tremendous expense of energy in excavating the buildings. Also, I wonder whether the structure would need to be engineered more or less strongly than a traditional building, what with both the pressure, and the support, from the surrounding earth.

Originally Posted by ainttelling

I propose to consider "lithoscraper"!

It does roll off the tongue more easily...

[Pablo323]

I Guess Our Grounscraper would be this one...

The Bancolombia Headquarters:







I think it's nice.

[QuarterMileSidewalk]

I agree... very cool, modern HQ.

[gothicform]

generally a groundscraper is a building on the ground that if you turned up on its side or cut into bits and stacked up would be a skyscraper.

eg -



or this 150 metre long bugger -



and this is a mega groundscraper, it's over 1000m long and you can only see a small section of it!

[Action]

then I propose the term undergroundscraper.

image hosted on flickr


yay i created a new word

[eddyb]

Originally Posted by QuarterMileSidewalk

I agree... the only thing, though, is the tremendous expense of energy in excavating the buildings. Also, I wonder whether the structure would need to be engineered more or less strongly than a traditional building, what with both the pressure, and the support, from the surrounding earth..

With the Parrahub concept http://www.parrahub.org.au/ the excavation would pay for itself with the sale of the crushed sandstone plus the fact that the land cost for the car park and station would be covered by the building on the surface.
As far as the structural cost goes I think that because the car park horizontally curved precast floor slabs would be constrained by the surrounding rock they would not have to be prestressed saving a significant amount of money.

[elkabel]

Something from Poland:
first commieblock in Gdańsk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falowiec"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falowiec




and this from Łodź

[The-E-Vid]

the one in the first pic is really long!

[Iluminat]

Originally Posted by The-E-Vid

the one in the first pic is really long!

about 1ooo m and the second one is a hospital


this one is about 1400 m but not in straight line...

[SASH]

This is the 'Groot Handelsgebouw' (Big tradecentre) in Rotterdam.
It was build in 1947-1952. It's floor space is 110.000 m2
Once build it was the biggest building in the Netherlands.
On top, you have got a fine terrace, which can be rent for some occasions like party's.

If took these pictures from the Dutch Forum.
Don't know who made the first 2.

1.


2.
[/QUOTE]


These ones are from Topaas. A Dutch forum member.
3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10.


11.


12.

[elkabel]

heh Iluminat to sie popisales... przczytaj pierwszy post i nie wrzucaj smieci