3 ms·
Why isn't this considered as a solution more often? Is it just because construction costs go up, or for reasons of culture and habit? It seems like this is abso
by girzel 12y ago
Why isn't this considered as a solution more often? Is it just because construction costs go up, or for reasons of culture and habit? It seems like this is absolutely the best approach for stabilizing temperatures in both hot and cold climates. Might not work well in a place with a lot of ground water, I guess, but in general it seems like a win. Reduces building profiles, as well.
- rprospero 12y agoWhile I've read enough Asimov to believe that the future is underground, I'll also be the first to admit that the lack of windows is a major problem with the system. You both lose natural light and the cooling air currents provided by the wind.
- girzel 12y agoWell I didn't mean all the way underground -- I think you'd get substantial benefits from going three-quarters down on the ground floor. If there's only one floor, skylights do the trick. For multiple stories, high windows, and then fans circulating air between floors. Hmm, I guess this is getting a little expensive after all...
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoWe like our views. Also, fire code wouldn't really allow for it in most developed countries...sinking windows is quite expensive.