Why should I build instead of two floors above ground, always one under ground?
"I pass by here knowing that it is not my final dwelling." - Someone
Bunkers are very expensive.
Safe Rooms are resources that only the rich can afford.
We sometimes barely have a home.
Decent.
Worthy.
Many can only have or finalize a home in this life.
This is the reality of millions.
So if we could barely afford a house because of a banker?
Or a shelter?
For obvious reasons I will not even enter into the merit of object, but into the logic of application.
I lived in apartments from my birth until the age of eighteen.
That's when I went to live in a house in an area farthest from downtown.
It was a very good house.
But it was not large despite having three floors.
With a beautiful lagoon and mountains with front view of the residence.
Despite being a sloping terrain, upright, its constructor made three floors.
Two above the ground and another under.
It was an interesting project.
As the house was on the street level, which in turn was a high, which was some twenty meters above sea level, he took advantage and made a floor below the street level of the house with two bedrooms and a hall.
In the underground floor, only the windows of the two rooms appeared, due to the verticalization of the land.
But the whole floor was inside the land.
Well, the builder did not want to use the pavement as a shelter.
He could have done it, just give up the windows.
Actually the terrain was not the ideal financially to make a banker, shelter or safe room.
And even if it were, I doubt that this question would not even be considered.
Even houses in the ground.
It is not natural and cultural for several of people this type of housing.
Or use of resources for these purposes.
Then I come back to the initial question, only the rich can have access to these resources?
History has shown us that humans have long ago made a symbiosis between nature and housing.
Houses in the ground.
Houses inside rocks.
Residential structure with an organically shaped plan and a low profile.
Full integration with nature.
Some changes in the design of underground houses would already turn them into a banker.
Why can not we have both?
Houses integrated into nature with security bias.
After all, why do we build houses?
What is the primordial point?
Is not it security?
To be safe?
So why not take it to the highest level?
What a beautiful symbiosis. Nature. Home. Safety.
If you still use clean and renewable energy like...
√ Windows energy
√ Photovoltaic energy
√ Piezoelectric energy
It would be my paradise.
And I believe of many too.
Because renewable and clean energy go beyond the environmental issue.
The autonomy and independence of the state that renewable energies provide is almost anarchy.