We Don’t Like Our Underground House(dengarden.com)
dengarden.com
We Don’t Like Our Underground House
https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-House
311 comments
There is a whole city in Australia that has almost exclusively underground houses. Seach for "Coober Pedy" on youtube for one of the many documentaries about that city.
One of the cons of underground living the article doesn't go into is radon exposure. Depending on where your house is located this can be a significant health risk.
Damn, this is a shame but at least they are honest with themselves and can look at this with an objective lens. Personally the idea of an underground house just screams problems to me, but I wonder if that's misplaced and there are people with well constructed underground homes that they've remained happy with long term.
Images don't load. Or just me?
Point 10. Cancer
“We replaced all damaged wood with treated timber and soaked it in creosote for good measure.”
Please, don’t do that. It’s a high suspect for cancer. Already some paints and most of the wood agglomerate glues are bad for health, but this!
Good luck still with your house, it’s vital to have a livable place for balance and creativity.
“We replaced all damaged wood with treated timber and soaked it in creosote for good measure.”
Please, don’t do that. It’s a high suspect for cancer. Already some paints and most of the wood agglomerate glues are bad for health, but this!
Good luck still with your house, it’s vital to have a livable place for balance and creativity.
Not surprisingly, underground house wasn't such a great idea, our predecessors learned this lesson when they abandoned caves, burrows and mud huts ages ago.
This is a lesson in being innovative. Pushing boundaries has costs. You can explore new ideas, rid yourself of legacy assumptions and arrive at some valuable things. But, you forgo the (often hidden) benefits of past mistakes and standard techniques that have all the kinks ironed out.
The problem with houses is that iteration is expensive. A lot of architectural innovations are actually a version 2. There's another building where the architect/builder learned from mistakes.
The problem with houses is that iteration is expensive. A lot of architectural innovations are actually a version 2. There's another building where the architect/builder learned from mistakes.
The first clue that you're going to have water problems are the steps leading down to your front door. You built a catch basin to live in.
Second clue is it is made from concrete. Concrete by itself is not water tight. It can be made water tight but some significant effort is required. Just ask anyone who has ever built a basement.
Second clue is it is made from concrete. Concrete by itself is not water tight. It can be made water tight but some significant effort is required. Just ask anyone who has ever built a basement.
What is up with all the deaths of people that cross this house? The realtor, the contractor giving an estimate..
This sounds more like a lack of experience than anything else. If they had found an experienced construction company that would have built these houses in the hundreds, that company would have assigned resources and figured out drainage, sealing and cracking. Once all this work is done, I'd assume it could be just as viable as anything else.
(And reading between the lines, the problems seem to be water, water, positioning on a sloped hill, cracks, water, water, quirkiness, water, and quirkiness.)
If anything, there's a bigger lesson in here on trusting things that are tried and trusted, instead of doing quirky stuff and trusting it with your livelihood. Why move in right away, why not have this as a weird cabin thing to experiment with? Never do experiments without fallbacks, people ...
(And reading between the lines, the problems seem to be water, water, positioning on a sloped hill, cracks, water, water, quirkiness, water, and quirkiness.)
If anything, there's a bigger lesson in here on trusting things that are tried and trusted, instead of doing quirky stuff and trusting it with your livelihood. Why move in right away, why not have this as a weird cabin thing to experiment with? Never do experiments without fallbacks, people ...
This blog post is 7+ years old, but they must keep updating it, which is nice to see they are still alive and kicking.
https://www.homeintheearth.com/2013/05/11/we-dont-like-our-u...
https://www.homeintheearth.com/2013/05/11/we-dont-like-our-u...
> tried to fix it ourselves by ejecting costly liquid epoxy into the holes and cracks from inside the house
Waterproofing has to go on the outside surface to work.
> Any wood on the house was a magnet for termites, and they were happily gnawing away all the woodwork that touched the ground and the concrete. We replaced all damaged wood with treated timber and soaked it in creosote for good measure.
Never have wood in contact with concrete. For one thing, concrete is a sponge for water, and it will wick into the wood. For another, it becomes a highway for hidden termite infestations, as you've experienced. The solution on my house was to put a stainless steel sill plate between the wood and the concrete.
The house has an underground basement, and it's dry (20 years now). I had a wet basement before, and did everything I could think of to keep it dry:
1. gravel under the slab with plastic on top sloping down to a gravity drain. The slap is on top of the plastic.
2. gravity drain, no pumps
3. The exterior concrete walls have a layer of waterproofing, followed by a "drain mat", followed by a foot of gravel wrapped in drain fabric. French gravity drains all around.
4. deep eaves on the roof keep the water away from the ground adjacent to the house.
5. ground slopes away from the house. Driveway slopes away. Deck slopes away.
There are cracks in the walls and floor, but no water. Gotta think of defense in depth, like a castle, with layers of defense. If water pools against the house, it will get in, guaranteed. The design has to prevent any pools from forming.
> Humidity in an underground house needs to stay at no more than 50%, but I get nosebleeds at that level
I got regular nosebleeds from the dry air in Arizona after moving there. Went away after 6 or 9 months.
Waterproofing has to go on the outside surface to work.
> Any wood on the house was a magnet for termites, and they were happily gnawing away all the woodwork that touched the ground and the concrete. We replaced all damaged wood with treated timber and soaked it in creosote for good measure.
Never have wood in contact with concrete. For one thing, concrete is a sponge for water, and it will wick into the wood. For another, it becomes a highway for hidden termite infestations, as you've experienced. The solution on my house was to put a stainless steel sill plate between the wood and the concrete.
The house has an underground basement, and it's dry (20 years now). I had a wet basement before, and did everything I could think of to keep it dry:
1. gravel under the slab with plastic on top sloping down to a gravity drain. The slap is on top of the plastic.
2. gravity drain, no pumps
3. The exterior concrete walls have a layer of waterproofing, followed by a "drain mat", followed by a foot of gravel wrapped in drain fabric. French gravity drains all around.
4. deep eaves on the roof keep the water away from the ground adjacent to the house.
5. ground slopes away from the house. Driveway slopes away. Deck slopes away.
There are cracks in the walls and floor, but no water. Gotta think of defense in depth, like a castle, with layers of defense. If water pools against the house, it will get in, guaranteed. The design has to prevent any pools from forming.
> Humidity in an underground house needs to stay at no more than 50%, but I get nosebleeds at that level
I got regular nosebleeds from the dry air in Arizona after moving there. Went away after 6 or 9 months.
I'm confused, how does it get: "Lots of natural light" if it's underground?
Sounds like a nightmare!
There's no way I could consider buying a house like this second hand - how can anyone do any research on it without exposing the structure? Looking inside will only tell you so much.
And, if this was a house I'd build myself, again how would I know what would stand the test of time? What good are guarantees if a company goes bust?
I love the idea, but would have to be very happy about that this had all the details had been worked out - and I don't see that I would be able to cross that threshold. Maybe if I lived in a dry (not temperate) environment this would have a better chance.
There's no way I could consider buying a house like this second hand - how can anyone do any research on it without exposing the structure? Looking inside will only tell you so much.
And, if this was a house I'd build myself, again how would I know what would stand the test of time? What good are guarantees if a company goes bust?
I love the idea, but would have to be very happy about that this had all the details had been worked out - and I don't see that I would be able to cross that threshold. Maybe if I lived in a dry (not temperate) environment this would have a better chance.
I would highly recommend a slopped roof over the steps leading to the house such that it directs the water away from the steps and the house.. or as others have pointed out, you will be constantly fighting water entering your house.
Second thing I would do is direct water away from other parts of the house by building a bore hole about 5-10 ft deep and about 1.5ft to 2ft diameter, in the lowest corner of the house. Use bricks to line the wall of this hole but with gaps to allow the water to drain into the hole.
Have a small, reasonably quiet electric motor which will run about 5-10 minutes every 2 hours or so (use a timer) to clear the water in this hole. This hole can be covered over with a tile(s) so that it is not obvious to those using that section of the house. Water from other parts of the house walls will drain into this hole reducing mold and other issues.
Thirdly, build a small slope around the entry into the house such that the water drains away from the house, preferably into a drain.
Second thing I would do is direct water away from other parts of the house by building a bore hole about 5-10 ft deep and about 1.5ft to 2ft diameter, in the lowest corner of the house. Use bricks to line the wall of this hole but with gaps to allow the water to drain into the hole.
Have a small, reasonably quiet electric motor which will run about 5-10 minutes every 2 hours or so (use a timer) to clear the water in this hole. This hole can be covered over with a tile(s) so that it is not obvious to those using that section of the house. Water from other parts of the house walls will drain into this hole reducing mold and other issues.
Thirdly, build a small slope around the entry into the house such that the water drains away from the house, preferably into a drain.
I remember an article on HN a couple of years ago about the temptation to build a software system on specialty, "interesting" languages or libraries that seem adapted to your specific needs and desires.
But the downside is that it costs a lot to find people who can code in that language, there's little community support, and you run into equally specialized problems that are hard, expensive, and take a long time to fix.
It seems there are lessons that parallel this house experience.
But the downside is that it costs a lot to find people who can code in that language, there's little community support, and you run into equally specialized problems that are hard, expensive, and take a long time to fix.
It seems there are lessons that parallel this house experience.
Conceptually an underground house is like a bungalow version of a house that has a large basement (and a earth roof).
In the UK I know basements (that have a house above them, not earth) to be near universally damp and miserable places.
In London the rich and famous are known to go down when it comes to house extensions, with ever larger basements. Sure the climate is different, and building tech has advanced, but I wonder if the posh homes with vast basements harbour problems. Particularly when adding features such as pools, deluxe bathrooms and gyms.
Every generation comes along to think they will not make the mistakes of their forefathers. It seems to be a game you can't win at. Lead works good under ground when it comes to keeping stuff out for centuries, so maybe you need to spend serious money on making a lead lined tomb and then lining that so there is no danger of getting lead poisoned.
In the UK I know basements (that have a house above them, not earth) to be near universally damp and miserable places.
In London the rich and famous are known to go down when it comes to house extensions, with ever larger basements. Sure the climate is different, and building tech has advanced, but I wonder if the posh homes with vast basements harbour problems. Particularly when adding features such as pools, deluxe bathrooms and gyms.
Every generation comes along to think they will not make the mistakes of their forefathers. It seems to be a game you can't win at. Lead works good under ground when it comes to keeping stuff out for centuries, so maybe you need to spend serious money on making a lead lined tomb and then lining that so there is no danger of getting lead poisoned.
While I can agree that living in an "underground house" is not for everybody, this article doesn't make sense in general. Most (if not all) problems are related with bad construction (leaks, floods during heavy rains, constant mold, pests, cracks during earthquakes), bad "fencing" and detail project (limited landscaping, people invade our privacy, difficult and expensive repairs), not with the kind of house itself. Was the house well built and this article wouldn't exist or the conclusion could be more favorable.
The only problem related with this kind of house might be depreciation. It's not mainstream and less liquid so you need to wait for the right buyer or sell it with a discount. However, the construction problems (it was clearly built by unexperienced contractors in this kind of building), certainly contribute a lot to repel possible buyers.
The only problem related with this kind of house might be depreciation. It's not mainstream and less liquid so you need to wait for the right buyer or sell it with a discount. However, the construction problems (it was clearly built by unexperienced contractors in this kind of building), certainly contribute a lot to repel possible buyers.
Maybe the best middle ground is to build "Domes" style homes.
But i think brick + concrete is the best solution. Sturdy, repairable and not overly expensive.
If caves/underground bunkers or flying homes would be cheaper and more effective it would be tried already ;)
Never underestimate super old proven traditional solution. First check if your new solution cover all bases like old one used to :D
But i think brick + concrete is the best solution. Sturdy, repairable and not overly expensive.
If caves/underground bunkers or flying homes would be cheaper and more effective it would be tried already ;)
Never underestimate super old proven traditional solution. First check if your new solution cover all bases like old one used to :D
Why not just build a house with very thick stone outer walls? Seems like all the advantages and none of the disadvantages.
> I told my husband to either turn off the (expletive) AC or turn on the gas logs. He turned off the AC. In the past, we have found it necessary to run both simultaneously.
Running both the AC and the heater is actually standard procedure for reducing humidity as quickly as possible. You should try it more often! It's a useful trick not only for your home but also for your car, when you need to fix foggy windows in cold & damp weather.
A heater on its own will not move any H2O from the inside of your home to the outside. It merely lowers the relative humidity, which will go right back up as soon as the air gets cold again. The AC, on the other hand, actually pumps water out by collecting condensate in the evaporator. But this doesn't work very well when the temperature is already lower than the lowest possible setting for your AC. So you use the heater to increase the temperature, kicking the AC into action. The result is the best of both worlds: moderately warm, dry air.
Source: I live in a very humid place. Forecast for tomorrow night: 59F with 95% humidity.
Running both the AC and the heater is actually standard procedure for reducing humidity as quickly as possible. You should try it more often! It's a useful trick not only for your home but also for your car, when you need to fix foggy windows in cold & damp weather.
A heater on its own will not move any H2O from the inside of your home to the outside. It merely lowers the relative humidity, which will go right back up as soon as the air gets cold again. The AC, on the other hand, actually pumps water out by collecting condensate in the evaporator. But this doesn't work very well when the temperature is already lower than the lowest possible setting for your AC. So you use the heater to increase the temperature, kicking the AC into action. The result is the best of both worlds: moderately warm, dry air.
Source: I live in a very humid place. Forecast for tomorrow night: 59F with 95% humidity.
95% of their problems are due to poor planning and shoddy construction. If they built it right from the start, it would still be great. But because of the nature of being underground, "simple" repairs stop being cheap or simple. So you gotta spend the cash upfront to do it right the first time.
This is a lesson in don't cheap out and kick the can down the road. Do it right the first time so you don't gotta redo it a second or third time, especially when redoing it involves digging up your entire house.
This is a lesson in don't cheap out and kick the can down the road. Do it right the first time so you don't gotta redo it a second or third time, especially when redoing it involves digging up your entire house.
Seems like their biggest problems are with the Arkansas climate. Like if you said "give me the closest thing you can to Cambodia, but at the 3th parallel" Arkansas would be tough to beat. Building the same home into the side of a hill with proper drainage at a more northerly latitude in a drier climate would likely yield much better results because it would demand so much less ability to shed moisture from the house.
Also it seems from the construction details I can infer from the article that the concrete serves as not only the structure keeping the earth out but as the interior walls to which everything that shouldn't get wet is attached. This seems dumb. Floating construction, if only on pressure treated spacers and foam, would likely work much better. If you really wanted to go all out you could have an air gap between the concrete and everything else i.e. Titan 2 silo.
Also, why the hell use drywall? Subways and tropical countries tile the crap out of everything for a reason. Sure it's cold but that's a better problem to have than damp drywall.
Also it seems from the construction details I can infer from the article that the concrete serves as not only the structure keeping the earth out but as the interior walls to which everything that shouldn't get wet is attached. This seems dumb. Floating construction, if only on pressure treated spacers and foam, would likely work much better. If you really wanted to go all out you could have an air gap between the concrete and everything else i.e. Titan 2 silo.
Also, why the hell use drywall? Subways and tropical countries tile the crap out of everything for a reason. Sure it's cold but that's a better problem to have than damp drywall.
Why don't tornado prone areas have more safe home options other than going entirely underground? Like an actual concrete home or more use of steel beams? I know it's more expensive but with the tornados seemingly increasing in intensity due to climate change, they're still less expensive than starting over entirely with a new home.
It's virtually impossible to water proof concrete, the water pressure is such that it'll force its way through the smallest pinhole/crack.
This could be fixed on the inside by stripping everything back and with tanking membrane draining down to a sump with a RAID 1 array of sump pumps.
This could be fixed on the inside by stripping everything back and with tanking membrane draining down to a sump with a RAID 1 array of sump pumps.
How do you go about and build your own dream home?
Buy a property. Tear it down. Get a contractor. Get a construction loan. After it’s done, then convert that to a normal mortgage. Can anyone share their experiences in going this route?
Buy a property. Tear it down. Get a contractor. Get a construction loan. After it’s done, then convert that to a normal mortgage. Can anyone share their experiences in going this route?
"Having a window relaxes your eyes during this era of stay-at-home pandemic and 10+ hours of screen time." I view screens all day for both work and recreation. This much more than when I was in an employers office where I could move about periodically. Opening a window with a distant view really improved my eye hygiene. Gazing out a window every minute or two, focusing the eyes at 20 or 100 feet really helps relax them. I could image a whole new generation of coke-bottle-eyeglass kids who spent two much screen time at home school, then video games afterwards.
Isn't it a bad idea to use gas heating if you are worried about humidity?
The listed pros of living in the underground house:
Protection from tornados, Lots of natural light, Great views, No noise from the street or neighbors, Pets seem to love it, Being closer to nature
I think only the tornado protection might be an argument. Otherwise the house does not have to be underground? I expected arguments like 'natural insulation' and 'less disturbing to the landscape'
Protection from tornados, Lots of natural light, Great views, No noise from the street or neighbors, Pets seem to love it, Being closer to nature
I think only the tornado protection might be an argument. Otherwise the house does not have to be underground? I expected arguments like 'natural insulation' and 'less disturbing to the landscape'
A cellar can be built if you surround it with gravel and install drainage pipes everywhere - and protect the outer wall with plastic or tar - and even then it doesn't last very long and problems with moisture are frequent so you have to dig and expose it again every now and then.
The best houses sit high on solid granite foundation pieces and are ventilated from below. They have steeply sloping roofs and long eaves. They have the minimal amount of holes in the floor or roof (preferably no cellar or skylights). They are built on a knoll so no water flows towards the building from any direction. Rain water from the roof is directed away with gutters and ditches. All building materials are breathing and can be dried if they get wet (no plastic or glass wool).