
We Don’t Like Our Underground House - jelliclesfarm
https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-House
======
WalterBright
> 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.

~~~
marvin
In very wet climates, such as those in parts of Scandinavia, the tradition is
to dig a thin trench all along the concrete basement walls/foundations and put
a sheet of reinforced plastic along the outside of the wall. Then fill in
outside this sheet with gravel, which doesn't hold moisture in the same way
that dirt does.

The property still needs to face downhill, to allow gravity to drain away the
water so it doesn't sneak in and get stuck against the walls, but this is a
nice passive system to greatly reduce the humidity in basements. I don't think
it would work well for a basement built in marshland, then you'd probably need
pumps or active air circulation.

This is basically what you described in your point 3, just pointing out here
that this technique works well even in climates that have 200 days of rain per
year. Admittedly the temperature figures into it; it probably wouldn't work
with both 200 days of rain and average temperatures of 25 celcius.

~~~
formerly_proven
This is common construction in Germany as well, with a drainage pipe near the
bottom of the gravel all around the house, which provides a low-restriction
path for water to escape.

~~~
calvinmorrison
Funny, I have heard them called French Drains

~~~
martin_a
I think that's the English word for that, yes. In Germany we normally call it
"Drainage" which is also a French word. Don't know what we Germans got with
France and trenches... ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
richiebful1
Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II...

~~~
martin_a
</satire> ;-)

------
PaulHoule
The American indifference to architecture has a flip side: build an innovative
building and you'll have innovative problems.

The authors of "Learning from Las Vegas" once got a contract to design a fancy
repair shed for trains in Pittsburg. They picked one out of a catalog and got
the remark "If we wanted this, we should have hired an architect." The
architects thought that the application deserved a roof that didn't leak, but
didn't deserve a custom design.

The authors of "Domebook" and "Domebook 2"

[https://www.worldcat.org/title/domebook-
one/oclc/36821926](https://www.worldcat.org/title/domebook-one/oclc/36821926)

deliberately took them out of print because they learned the hard way you
don't want to live in a geodesic dome. (e.g. for one thing you'll never be
able to hang a painting)

I know one alternative housing entrepreneur who has left a string of barely
livable buildings in his wake. I know another who had more success because he
kept building variations on a theme (A-Frame houses with Japanese-looking
details) but even there when somebody lives in them for a year they realize
that a square foot of space in a rectangular building is worth a square foot,
a square foot in some other building is worth less.

~~~
jiofih
I’m confused about the train shed example. What are you trying to say there?

Innovative architecture does not equal problems, it is commonly done all over
the world. It’s a matter of good design principles, materials science and
factoring the human experience in architecture, which all good architects care
for. Maybe the problem comes from people trying to make it on the cheap and
cutting corners?

~~~
PaulHoule
Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with it,
but in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts and will
take advantage to the maximum possible.

In the case of that train shed, the innovative design is not going to improve
the business results, and almost any desire to have a unique image can be
pursued at low cost by putting a sign on or around the shed. If you want to
keep that image fresh you can replace the sign at 0.01% the cost of replacing
the building.

The motivation of making a building that impresses other people is dangerous
-- the Ancien Regime in France was motivated a lot by that but they found that
that "track" leads to losing your head.

Ironically, the shed was commissioned by people involved with the notorious
Mellon family which did an astonishing amount of damage to the U.S. Economy
and Political system circa 1975-2000. For one thing they refused to upgrade US
steel production to use the basic oxygen furnace as Germany and Japan were
doing -- and they used protectionism to keep their expensive low-quality steal
going into U.S. products such as automobiles. Thus they harmed the
competitiveness of US industry.

After protectionism was discredented, the Mellons then went on to pay this guy

[https://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-
David-B...](https://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-
Brock/dp/1400047285)

to promote fake scandals around Bill Clinton and ultimately maneuver him to
get impeached.

If somebody got them to listen for once and abandon one vainglorious scheme
that would have been remarkable -- because it is just so hard to get people
like that to listen! Heck, had somebody showed Louis 14 or 16 some tough love
we might be watching "Keeping up with the Louises" on reality TV!

~~~
rkangel
> Maybe in Germany an architect can make a flawed building and get away with
> it, but in America the buyer or resident will have recourse to the courts
> and will take advantage to the maximum possible.

The article that we are commenting on here is about a property in the US where
they had absolutely no legal recourse, either to the seller or the
builder/architect. The timescales are too long with houses for there to be any
guarantee of there being a business to be held liable.

~~~
jiofih
Not only that, in most of western Europe you get 5, 10 or more years builder
guarantee, regulations are very strict, insurance is extremely cheap, full
coverage and no-questions-asked.

The majority of houses are concrete or masonry and not oversized wooden
crates.

I don’t even know how Germany came into the picture, but that attitude
explains a lot of the boring “box with a sign on it” architecture.

------
hourislate
Everyday in NA construction companies build underground/below grade without
any issues. These folks didn't know what they were doing and afterwards didn't
do what they needed to to fix it. Maybe they just didn't have the resources.

I would have never buried concrete without proper waterproofing. A possible
fix (least expensive) would have been digging up and uncovering the house to
apply a closed cell roofing foam (3 lb Foam). It would have not only insulated
their entire house but would have waterproofed it and prevented many of the
rodents and bugs from entering. They should have had proper drainage also.

Looks like the franchise they hired to build their house didn't know what they
were doing or was more a fly by night operation.

~~~
syntheticnature
They weren't the original builders, with the realtor and seller first directly
mentioned under point 1 and again later on. This does seem to be something
folks miss, given the other comments under the article.

That said, it does look like the franchise the original person hired was both
incompetent and fly-by-night, given the comments, and then the original person
patched things up just enough to pass muster and got out while they could.

------
S_A_P
As a PSA to the author- She stated in the sites comments that she wrote the
article 10 years ago(2010-12ish) and that was the way she felt at the time it
was written. She also acknowledges progress has been made since her home was
built long ago and that some/most/all of the problems they have may now be
solved. The impression I get from reading this is that: 1) the home was built
by a franchisee that was cutting corners. 2) the marketing materials were
believed without any additional research, but since the home was purchased in
1994 and this is early internet/AOL internet days at best. 3) They may have
gone into it a bit naive.

Couple takeaways I have from this: 1) Building in the ground is hard, and
doesnt just make the place magically efficient. 2) Be sure you arent
stretching yourself financially to buy an 'innovative' home. Have the money or
ability to fix the inevitable 'innovative' problems that crop up. 3) No home
is maintenance free. 4) Seems to me that they need to scoop all the dirt off
their home and do a full refurbishment/rebuild.

~~~
jasongill
The author wasn't the original owner, the house was built years before they
moved in. They purchased it for less than the original owner had paid to have
it built, so it doesn't sound like they were stretching themselves too thin -
they thought they were getting a good deal and would be able to deal with any
issues that came up.

The fact that they own their own backhoe, and the pictures that they have
shown, indicate that they have tried quite a lot of solutions, and as
indicated in the article they are not interested in doing a full rebuild as it
would not make financial sense, considering the depreciation of underground
houses.

~~~
S_A_P
I dont think that was anything I was implying but you are correct. I was
stating that in the big picture dont buy an unusual home if you are at the end
of your budget. I think that they absolutely stated in the article that they
could not afford to uncover the land and "fix" the home they way that was
needed...

------
dalbasal
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.

~~~
cesaref
The thing is, houses which are half hidden by hillsides have been built for
hundreds of years with basic materials in the alps, so i'd have thought there
is a rich seam of information about what works, and how to tackle various
problems (my parent's house is like this, with a whole floor difference in
level between the back and front of the house and this doesn't have damp
problems).

~~~
dalbasal
A rich seam perhaps, but that needs to be "mined" and what you get is raw
material.... uhm analogy still working right?

There's a big difference between " _someone somewhere has done this and
documented it_ " and " _these exact builders have built 100s of these in my
area._ " The gap between principle and practice.

Software design and engineering is very influential these days, obviously on
HN. We need to remember that bits have all sorts of magic to them. One magic
is refactoring, bug fixing and malleability generally. With a building, any
"bug" in the initial build is usually there forever.

------
war1025
I grew up in an underground house, though not one as elaborate as this sounds.

It was mostly just a concrete house built into the side of a hill so that only
the southern face is exposed.

When my parents moved in it had four feet of earth on the roof as well.

The roof would be dry the day it rained, but would start leaking two or three
days after the rain was done.

They got tired of that. So they removed all the dirt and exposed the concrete,
then just built a second story onto the house.

The main peculiar thing about that house from a broader perspective is that we
treated the upstairs like most people treat a basement.

The main room in the upstairs was I think 20 feet wide by 60 feet long. And it
had a concrete floor. Made for a good adolescent play area.

~~~
oh_sigh
Right...I'm not done the article yet, but I wonder why they didn't just remove
all the dirt from the roof, or install an impermeable membrane over the entire
hill.

~~~
randcraw
Budget constraints were why not, I suspect. It sounds like the house value
never exceeded $150K, so adding at least $10K to excavate, membrane, and
refill/recover probably exceeded available cash-in-hand.

What's more, removing tons of fill dirt above a finished space is likely to be
a delicate enterprise without over-stressing or penetrating the concrete domes
which were already weakened due to cracking and past patching.

------
throwaway0a5e
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.

~~~
VBprogrammer
The air gap was one of my first thoughts. This is common on woodframed homes,
where you have the a vapour barrier, insulation / insulation + framework, a
moisture barrier, an air gap and then the water shedding layer (siding, render
carrier, brickwork etc). Even in the UK where wood framing is less common it's
almost identical to our roof structure where you have insulation, the roof
framework (with ventilation in the eves), a water barrier (classically tar
paper) and then the water shedding layer (concrete, slate or clay tiles).

I guess one challenge is how you would have sufficient ventilation in the gap
underground, perhaps you'd have to use some kind of forced air ventilation
with all of the problems that would entail.

However, by the time you ventilate that space you have now negated any thermal
mass advantages you had from building under ground in the first place by
introducing ambient air.

~~~
randcraw
Adding water channels as well were my thought. Just as air gaps allow moist
air to exit wall cavities, external drain channels should prevent water from
pooling and penetrating.

Presumably in an underground house, you'd want your roof to have a big air gap
that could serve both purposes -- excess water removal and moist air exhaust.
I believe many house foundations routinely add an external air+water drain/gap
layer like this.

------
galfarragem
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.

~~~
DanBC
> Most (if not all) problems are related with bad construction

Underground houses or basements are plagued with this kind of problem because
they seem to be really difficult to build properly, and really expensive to
fix once they've been built.

I've never met anyone who's been happy with their basement. I've lived in four
places that have basements (a mix of newish builds (since 2000) and old
(1800s) builds and the basements have always been terrible, even if there had
been extensive work making them less horrible.

~~~
rwmj
My grandparents' house had a basement, which was cold but it was never damp.
As kids we loved playing in it.

The thing is looking back I realise that the entire "ground floor" of the
house was raised a good 6 feet up, so the basement only went a short distance
into/under the ground. In fact the basement had a door which led straight out
into the rear garden. (The "official" back door of the house was at the top of
a flight of stairs). So that's how you build a basement that doesn't get damp
:-)

In London this seems to be quite a common design for Victorian-era houses
which is why many basement flats have access to the rear garden.

~~~
superhuzza
>the basement had a door which led straight out into the rear garden.

This is called, rather descriptively, a "walk-out basement".

------
alexggordon
Most of the discussions here are talking about the downsides of alternative
home designs. In general, while there's going to be some failures, exploring
new home designs should be encouraged--most of the world can't afford the
construction style common in NA, and material science and advanced robotics
lead to incredibly cheap alternative home construction possibilities. There's
a ton of improved life statistics tied to home ownership. Especially with
alternative home designs though, home inspections should absolutely be the
most important and time consuming thing you do during a purchase.

I discovered this by lucky happenstance during my first home purchase, but a
good home inspector will save you thousands of dollars, and sometimes more.
While any sort of home inspection is not discussed in the article, I believe
that an alternative construction building inspector (while costing more than a
normal inspector) would have caught some of the more major issues mentioned
here. If it's true that the leaks in the concrete were covered up long enough
to sell the home, then most leak detection equipment would easily have caught
it. Water damage, foundation issues and leaks are standard home inspection
protocol. Additionally, it sounds like a fair amount of the termite issues
could have been caught before the sale of the home, which is also a standard
part of home inspections.

In the event of purchasing an alternative home like this, I would not hesitate
to even hire multiple home inspectors, especially ones that know the house and
the area. Even having a quick conversation with them ahead of time (Are you
familiar inspecting concrete roofed homes?).

~~~
pkrotich
I cannot stress the need to get a good home inspector (my be even multiple) -
even for a normal home. It's worth the money - I learned the hard way because
I trusted a checklist inspector.

~~~
alexggordon
My home inspector worked exclusively in my town, with the most common housing
construction type that my house was built with. I live in a town with a lot of
19th century homes. Not only was he able to tell me most of the common
problems that occur in the homes, but exactly what remodels had been done to
the home (like what was cheaply done, and what was done 'right'). He also gave
me a fairly extensive list of contractors and maintenance people from around
the area that he trusted, and encouraged me to contact him if I had any
questions or concerns over the next couple years. Looking back on it, as a
first time home buyer, I would pay 10x more for the service he gave me than
what he charged.

------
supernova87a
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.

~~~
dundercoder
RethinkDB in 2015.

------
w0mbat
Throughout reading the article I kept wondering why they didn't pursue the
obvious solution : build a normal house next to it and move in. They have a
nice plot of land and cost of conventional construction in Arkansas is low.

They could rent out the stupid underground house as a mushroom farm or bat
sanctuary or just fill it with concrete and put a garage on top.

------
fooblat
I happily lived in an underground house for several years.

However, there were some key differences in the design. My house had an above
ground A frame roof with a door at ground level. The door opened to stairs
going down to a second door to enter the living space. It looked like a house
that had sunk 3/4s of the way into the ground.

I never had a any problems with pests or flooding and the heating and cooling
costs were tiny, even with winters below freezing and summers in the mid 90s.

I guess technically it was a "mostly" underground house and in my experience
that design worked really well.

------
philprx
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.

~~~
nwienert
Interesting. Having grown up in the southwest I had only ever been exposed to
creosote as in the bush that gives off the incredible smell when it rains in
the Sonoran desert.

Reading on creosote tar and was interesting to see no citations (on Wikipedia)
for the toxicity, and yet a couple studies against it:

“A 2005 mortality study of creosote workers found no evidence supporting an
increased risk of cancer death, as a result of exposure to creosote. Based on
the findings of the largest mortality study to date of workers employed in
creosote wood treating plants, there is no evidence that employment at
creosote wood-treating plants or exposure to creosote-based preservatives was
associated with any significant mortality increase from either site-specific
cancers or non-malignant diseases. “

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Creosote is banned in the EU since 2009 (and since 1991 in Germany) for most
uses, especially everywhere it might come in contact with humans. There are
narrow exceptions for eg railroad ties and utility poles.

~~~
weinzierl
> (and since 1991 in Germany)

I remember that the presumed health risks were discussed years before that
date, and it has been avoided by some even before the ban.

~~~
nwienert
Are there any good studies on it? Seems like the tar can have bad effects due
to buildup, but from a very brief search creosote in and of itself seemed
fine.

------
jqpabc123
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.

~~~
a_imho
Could concrete be substituted for the underground use case, like putting a
metal container into the ground and call it a home? I'm fascinated with the
idea of having a house with (mostly) passive temperature control. Could an
underground design help with that?

~~~
throwaway0a5e
Big corrugated culvert and Quonset huts have been buried as temporary military
installations. Steel rusts and aluminum and stainless are expensive.

If you want a waterproof container I'd look into used plastic or fiberglass
industrial process tanks (preferably ones that held something not too nasty,
so likely from the food industry), dig a hole, do proper compaction and gravel
base then plop the tanks in (fill them with water or something so they don't
float away) and then pour concrete around them for strength (leaving holes for
your vents and doors and whatnot). You're going to have to become well versed
in chemistry and construction to prevent all your "rooms" from leaking at the
doorways where you have cut holes to join them together.

~~~
hchz
I worked for some time at a former nuclear weapons research facility where a
number of Transite composite asbestos Quonset huts were built in the 50's and
used through the 2000's.

Checking google maps, it appears that they've finally remediated these
structures, but they were in fine condition up until then.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
Asbestos ones last a lot longer than the steel ones. The galvanization slowly
fails around the edged where there's exposed metal and trapped moisture. They
do last a long time but I wouldn't want to put one underground where I
couldn't fix it and where any rust hole instantly becomes a leak.

------
lacker
I don't know very much about housing and construction, but this part set off a
big red flag to me:

 _We should have been forewarned when we were able to purchase the house for
$45,000 less than the cost to build it._

Yeah, that should have been a forewarning about everything. Someone else knew
that the house was a lemon, and they managed to dump it off on this
unfortunate buyer.

~~~
aidenn0
I don't know about Arkansas real-estate, but my sister has moved a couple of
times in Missouri and Kansas and has _never_ paid above the cost of building
the house, and once paid much less.

Structures are depreciating assets, and in many parts of the US the land does
not appreciate enough to cover that up.

~~~
lacker
Interesting, I guess all my real estate experience is in coastal-type areas
where any sale priced below a previous sale is a red flag. TIL

------
hinkley
I kept trying to pick a thing in that article to call out as a warning here
but the hits. Just. Kept. Coming.

Instead I will just recommend two things to anyone dreaming of buying a house.
Start watching This Old House, [especially] the back catalog. Almost
everything that can go wrong on a house has gone wrong there. And remember
this while watching it:

Intelligent people learn from their own mistakes, while wise people learn from
the mistakes of others.

The “cat litter” crack about bentonite clay: bentonite is nearly the only way
people discuss for building an artificial pond if you don’t want to use a
synthetic liner. But you don’t get a pond by sealing half of the hole you dug
(and it takes a lot of clay). The water just runs out somewhere else. Or in
this case, in.

Edit: Old TOH > New TOH

~~~
droopyEyelids
Also a warning to people watching "This Old House":

The seasoned, professional, competent tradespeople you see on every episode
are a nonexistent myth in most areas of the country. Many of the projects they
accomplish with relative ease are not practical to the more junior
tradespeople you will be able to find, and they will be fantastically
expensive if you find the veterans you see on the show.

~~~
kbenson
I think the trick is that just like in most jobs, the people need to not work
in isolation and have a support network.

We had major water damage a few years back in our brand new house, and we
hired a reputable local small contractor to fix it. Most of the work was done
by his sons, who were in their late 20's to early 30's, but he was on site to
discuss the work done beforehand, and numerous times during the work to
direct. You can bet if any of them had a problem or question, they would work
with each other and their father to come to a good solution combining their
experience. They did very high quality work.

I would rather have a worker of below average experience with an expert to
manage and provide direction to them than an average level worker in field
that doesn't rely disproportionately on skill of an individual.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Given the limited space, the builder should have put a driveway over one wing.
That would simplify some of the maintenance problems. The surface space is
essentially useless as is anyway. Maybe find a better way to deal with the
Sarlacc pit too. That can't be pleasant in heavy downpours.

[https://www.google.com/maps/@34.812992,-92.3296159,3a,75y,18...](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.812992,-92.3296159,3a,75y,188.73h,68.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPxeZs-
stq16xAcpIjen9TQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4?hl=en)

The neighbor's wheel-less Jeep brought back memories :) Jacks? Who needs
jacks?

Bonus: Another neighbor's solution to their undrained driveway flooding the
garage. Just leave a gap at the bottom to let it flow back out.

[https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8129841,-92.3292783,3a,59.4y...](https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8129841,-92.3292783,3a,59.4y,182.97h,78.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scbbuei2C852uu8_pzXgMEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4?hl=en)

------
kbenson
> One particularly stormy night, a torrent poured into the front atrium from
> the street above the house and flooded the great room. ... Who would have
> thought to buy flood insurance for a house high upon a hillside?

Presumably someone that noticed that the street is above the house, and there
are entrances to the house with higher land on all sides of them? Those both
seem like red flags to me.

I'm not sure how much of the water problems are endemic to the type of house
and how much are from poor planning and placement by the original architect
and builders, but at least some of it looks to be because of poor planning and
building.

------
pkphilip
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.

------
ev1
What is up with all the deaths of people that cross this house? The realtor,
the contractor giving an estimate..

~~~
yreg
Also most of the plants died as well.

------
mindwok
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.

------
kijin
> _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.

~~~
vaccinator
a dehumidifier would probably be more efficient than heating and cooling the
air...

~~~
bluGill
It is the same thing. A dehumidifier is just an Air conditioner followed by a
heat pump.

Though I agree more efficient.

~~~
smileysteve
Said a different way;

A dehumidifier is just an air conditioner with the evaporator and condensor in
the same air space.

~~~
vaccinator
air conditioner; does that mean adding a smell to the air?

------
AngryData
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.

~~~
throwaway0a5e
They bought it in 1994, before everything you ever needed to know about
construction was on the internet. Short of having a preexisting familiarity
with underground construction or having a buddy who designed missile silos
their ability to identify potential future problems was likely quite limited.

~~~
rlonstein
True but I remember reading books, or collections of articles, on construction
as a kid in the 70's and 80's with imprints like Mother Earth News and (iirc)
Foxfire and more mainstream ones by Readers Digest, Time-Life, and Sunset.
They covered things like this. It wasn't entirely out of reach if you went to
a library.

------
wycy
A lot of their problems are related to bad construction, but it's important to
recognize that this house design is hard to construct well. Water is the most
insidious thing to a house, and builders are not particularly great at
waterproofing even above grade structures. In the case of an underground
structure, that water hangs around and has a lot of time to find its way in.

------
hutzlibu
"By the way, the realtor probably couldn't have cared less about a fraudulent
sale charge because he moved to Mexico immediately thereafter and died a year
later"

"In 2010, I found a roofer who made an estimate of $100,000 to repair the
roof, but he said he wasn’t sure he wanted to tackle the job. We told him that
we owned a backhoe and would remove the layers of dirt and insulation
ourselves. Unfortunately, he died unexpectedly only two weeks after making the
estimate."

At some point in the beginning they probably should have already consulted an
Exorzist, or similar, or alternatively burned it all to the ground.

------
londons_explore
I have an underground house in the UK. Much of the same issues apply. I too
have stalactites coming down from my ceiling!

The main issue is damp coming through all the damp membranes from the floor,
the ceiling, and the walls.

If I wanted to solve it, I would knock all the internals of the house out, and
then build a new house inside the current one. The outer house to keep the
soil out, and the inner house for waterproofing. I'd have pumped air
circulating between the houses to evaporate any water that manages it through
the outer house.

~~~
propter_hoc
This is a fascinating idea but sounds crazy. You would basically have a house
in a cave. Would you prefer that over just building your house on open land?

~~~
londons_explore
In my case, my house can't be more than ~1 foot above ground level or it would
block someone elses (legally protected) right to a view.

So it has to be 90% underground, and parts of it have ~10 feet of soil above.

------
pengaru
Buying a too-large backhoe SIGHT UNSEEN then letting it sit in the yard for 15
YEARS?

If they put a similarly nonexistent amount of time and effort into researching
fixing their drainage problems as they did selecting and purchasing what's
probably their most expensive and difficult to transport tool, I'm going to
assume this quite possibly is an easy fix for someone more competent and
disciplined.

Edit: I wonder if they installed the hot-tub on the deck while the wrong
backhoe was rusting nearby.

------
jansan
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.

~~~
LunaSea
Isn't it also in a desert which would remove all the mould and humidity
issues?

~~~
prawn
Yes, it's incredibly hot and dry, and doesn't get much rain. Going by
Wikipedia, they had 30mm (1.2") of rain in 1921. Averages about 21 days a year
with >1mm of rain.

------
ethagknight
Not to armchair quarterback this or anything but.... this sounds like a pretty
simple problem to fix, WITHOUT spending a bunch of money. dig up a few feet of
soil around the house (they said they have an excavator), put down a geo-
membrane sloping away from the house, install a primary and backup drawdown
well pumps (I forget the correct term, but its what is normally done around
landfills and environmental hazard sites) to pump out water that manages to
get through, and cover it all back up with proper surface drainage to remove
as much water from the ground cover as possible. Water coming in the front
door, may have to think about an above ground roof covering for that, or a
removable storm shutter, or additional pumps. Keeping water out, even fixing
old water infiltration problems, is civil engineering 101. They called a
roofer and a concrete worker to fix a civil problem.

------
feralimal
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.

------
jonstewart
Air is a wonderful thing. I bought my dream house a couple years ago, a
supposedly passive solar earth berm house, built into the south slope of a
hill in southwestern Wisconsin.

First, passive solar isn’t. It needs to be so well engineered, and even then
you likely need active systems to transfer heat from the storage medium (eg
fans and ducts blowing over a rock bed). My house has huge windows, but the
sun shines on normal drywall and the wood floor of the upper level. And of
course it’s still cool in late spring when the sun stops contributing much
gain and it’s still hot in late July when it starts creeping through the
windows again.

Second, it’s damp. Humidity spikes like hell in the summer. I have to run a
dehumidifier to keep things below 60%, and I have no idea what I’d have to do
to get things below 50%. All three levels are bermed, with a cinder block
wall. With the west-east orientation, we can get some halfway decent
ventilation on the upper level, but we aren’t high enough up the hill to be
assured of a steady breeze (we’re down in the hollow), maybe 20 or 30 feet in
elevation above our creek that mercifully drains heavy rains away.

With a normal house above ground, things can dry out from the outside and,
especially, you can open enough windows and catch a breeze to air the house
out. It is just a far more robust way to go. At a minimum I am going to need
to redo the attic insulation, seal all the ceiling joints, and put in an ERV
to provide greater ventilation and dehumidification, not to mention new
AC/heat pump minisplits. I also think I may need to partially excavate the
berm and throw in a proper French drain, and I’m worried that I should just do
a full excavation of the back, two levels down, in order to apply proper
sealing on the exterior, and perhaps throw some drains under the slab.

With building science today, you can build a frame house tight enough, a
“pretty good house,” stick some solar panels on it, and use far less energy
while maintaining comfort, and it doesn’t take nearly the engineering and
careful building that a bermed or underground house does.

I love my little hobbit hole with the big windows. I’m fortunate to be a
software engineer with good enough prospects and investments to be able to
afford a minor folly on a second/eventual retirement home. I wouldn’t
recommend it for someone trying to build equity with their primary home.

------
brudgers
If you are building below grade, W.R. Grace Bituthene is what you want:
[https://gcpat.com/en/solutions/products/bituthene-post-
appli...](https://gcpat.com/en/solutions/products/bituthene-post-applied-
waterproofing)

On the outside of course so that water pressure presses it more tightly
against the surface. It is like Grace Ice and Water Shield but is suitable for
_vertical_ application. Unlike liquid membranes, the sheets will always have
the required thickness and you can inspect for overlapping joints. As a
commercial product there are factory technical reps whose job is to help
insure the reputation of the product.

However, the real lesson in the article is you can't afford custom
construction if there is any question about affordability. The major issues
with the house are design issues. A few hundred hours of architectural design
work that didn't happen resulting in some thousands of dollars of site work
that didn't happen and some thousands of dollars of materials that weren't
installed and so on.

------
omgwtfbyobbq
I feel like the drainage/leaks/flooding is the biggest issue, with difficulty
in repairs being second. I've had to deal with leaks, limited landscaping,
cracks from earthquakes, difficult and expensive repairs, depreciating home
value, pest problems, and people invading my privacy in conventional wood
frame homes. I imagine I would also have more experience with mold if I didn't
live in a dry region.

Ironically enough, the earth-bermed house my mom purchased in 2012 appears
seems to be the most durable overall because it's owner built and they spent
time/effort/thought on drainage, functionality, maintenance, safety, etc...
The only significant downside is earthquake insurance is prohibitively
expensive because the lower level is masonry and was built before a certain
point in time. I'm fairly certain it's reinforced with rebar, but it wasn't
required to be in the building code at that point and insurance treats it as
unreinforced masonry because of that.

------
Gys
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'

~~~
bluGill
problem is - as they discovered - the natural insulation isn't very good. It
is better than a house built in 1880, but by 1970 builders knew how to do
better. Today better insulation is required by code in the US.

------
Gravityloss
If it touches the ground, it gets moist. So it has to be solid rock or steel.
Maybe some plastic might work.

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).

------
kylehotchkiss
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.

~~~
kyuudou
I've recently read about ICF (Insulating Concrete Form) houses fairing well in
tornado environments, with an anecdotal report about a neighborhood whose ICF
houses mostly stood after being otherwise flattened by a large tornado.
Here[1] are some more reports on that. ICF seems like a decent compromise
between a typical NA wood+drywall home and a moldy concrete fortress.
Basically a lego-like form of blocks is built and a lighter concrete mix is
sprayed into it then the blocks removed.

I've been tracking Handeeman[2] on youtube since about a year after started
their homestead in SE Arizona which is how I first heard about ICF as they
just raised a new ICF home on their property. The guy does some great drone
and video work tracking his progress and it's honestly quite inspiring to
watch them go. They are trying to rely totally on rainwater collected from the
brief annual monsoon rains and eventually to be self-sustaining with their
vegan lifestyle.

1: [https://icfhomesofva.com/2019/02/14/icfs-turn-tornados-
into-...](https://icfhomesofva.com/2019/02/14/icfs-turn-tornados-into-
tornadonts/) 2:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb0s0qC96lCcx2pO2za6mcw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb0s0qC96lCcx2pO2za6mcw)

------
Tiktaalik
Coincidentally I recently read that a Tsilhqot'in family in the Cariboo area
of British Columbia is building a traditional "pit house" of the sort their
ancestors would have used for thousands of years.

[https://www.thefreepress.ca/news/a-pit-house-for-a-
tsilhqoti...](https://www.thefreepress.ca/news/a-pit-house-for-a-tsilhqotin-
family/)

I suspect this Tsilhqot'in family will have more success than those in this
article because they will be listening to elders, considering traditional
proven techniques, and most importantly, _their location and environment
matches the house style_.

The lands of the Tsilhqot'in are in the rain shadow of the coast mountains, so
dryer than other parts of BC. They will accordingly most likely not suffer
mold issues and since Cariboo summers can be very hot, their pit house will
most likely be a cool refuge.

------
Theodores
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.

~~~
KaiserPro
Its perfectly possible to make dry basements.

In the same way its perfectly possible to make dry houses (we are used to damp
proofing in houses, less so in basements)

Put it this way, we've managed to make swimming pools that don't leak,
underground houses are basically swimming pools with roofs.

Firstly you need to choose your ground and prepare it properly. You then need
to choose your materials. With basements you can either put the tanking on the
outside, in the material or or on the inside. Each has its own merits.

Then you need to think about insulation and ventilation. You will be at a
different temperature to the outside world for most of the year. You therefore
need to think about how you manage humidity.

~~~
Theodores
You are proving my point. Everyone knows best and thinks that they won't make
the mistakes of the past when it comes to making bone dry basements that will
work in perpetuity.

The people in the article did not set out to make their home even more damp
and the original builders did not set out to make it damp. They thought they
knew what they were doing.

With British town houses that have basements the original ground dug out for
the foundations went into the road which is built up by a storey. The basement
faces out into the garden, the sides join with neighbouring houses in the
terrace. The front has a gap to the road that has a containing wall. Coal and
stuff could be delivered to the basement area with a hatch in the road in some
areas.

Despite this sophisticated no-digging approach to a basement and dry walls on
all sides there is still a damp problem that has to be managed.

You can't just hold back water in earth with concrete, plastic or anything
else 'waterproof' as it will rot away or prove to get damp in time. Even with
clay that prevents oxygen getting to steel, steel will rust away too.

We wouldn't have these problems if we had stayed in the trees.

------
kebman
My mother bought a house next to a bog. Needless to say, with the drainage
being almost non-existant, it has started seeping in water, especially during
the spring. There has been some exceptionally warm winters in the North of
Norway the last few years, but we've also had record snow, so when it thaws,
everything goes at once, leading water to saturate the boggy earth, and then
to seep into the house. Luckily it can be fixed by digging out new drainage
trenches, and filling them with felt and gravel, accordingly, to filter the
water out into a small drainage brook nearby. It's still going to cost a fair
bit to get it done, though, and proper drainage could have saved us the
problem in the first place. Luckily the insurance company will rework the
inside, as panels got wet and need dehumidifying and mold-extinction.

------
BobBagwill
The temperature of the ground at shallow depths corresponds to the mean annual
air temperature (MAAT). If the MAAT in your location is 15.5C/60F, that's the
temperature of your underground house. If you let in warm, damp air, it will
condense inside. If there are any flaws in the drainage or waterproofing, it
will get wet inside. If 15.5C is a little cool for you, you can insulate and
install hardware to control the temperature and humidity. At this point,
you've decoupled the internal environment from the surrounding environment.

You're not 100% underground, so you're still not 100% protected from tornados
or fire or bullets or COVID-22 zombies. Underground houses don't seem like a
good solution for most situations. Passive House for the win!

------
alexpotato
If you are curious on some excellent YouTube videos on drainage techniques and
various way to install them. I highly recommend the Apple Drains channel:
[https://www.youtube.com/user/appledrains](https://www.youtube.com/user/appledrains)

For example, I had no idea that there is such a thing as an outdoor sump pump
which can be used to pump water uphill if your drainage issues are below
street level. That doesn't apply to my case since you can't use these in my
town but none of the landscapers I've spoken to even mentioned it.

The host is very likeable as well.

------
blackrock
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?

~~~
bluGill
There are plenty of general contractors that will do this for you. For a fee
they will buy a property - most have a selection or properties in various
subdivisions to choose from or you can bring your own (note that if you want
in a subdivision you will probably find that the developers sell all/most of
the property to general contractors before starting work - their bank won't
finance things without that). If there is tear-down needed they will arrange
that. They will help you get a print that can be legally built. They have
deals with banks to get you loans. They will deal with sub-contractors to do
the other work. Then you just need to get the final loan which again they will
help you with (as in they won't start if they don't think you can get one)

You can do this yourself. However you will have a hard time getting loans.
There are two problems. First you have to pay for the place you are living
(and then get rid of it!) while also paying for the new place that you will
live. Most people are paying as much to live in one place as they can afford
(this is right out of Adam Smith), so it is unlikely. Second, banks don't know
if you can actually manage all the details, they don't want to be left when a
half built house when you divorce (it is very common for couples to divorce
over the stress of building a house).

Be very careful about budget if you do this. I know a contractor who can look
at a print and estimate the final cost - if he builds the print he will be
within a thousand of the final cost. When he builds for someone else the final
cost is almost always $30,000 more than his estimates - the floor plan is the
same but all the little upgrades added up. This is even though every time
someone asks about an upgrade he warns them their price goes up and the house
won't be worth any more.

~~~
blackrock
Nice response. Thanks. I was looking for personal anecdotes and experiences
here.

------
peter303
"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.

------
weinzierl
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.

~~~
DoingIsLearning
I thought Radon was mostly an issue with granite bedrock and granite houses
with poor ventilation?

Is it a universal issue wherever you dig into the soil?

~~~
stareatgoats
It mostly depends on where your house is located, if the minerals contain
uranium, and then type of building material, level of ground air intake and
ventilation.

"Some types of rocks have higher than average uranium contents. These include
light-colored volcanic rocks, granites, dark shales, sedimentary rocks that
contain phosphate, and metamorphic rocks derived from these rocks."
([https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/7000018/report.pdf](https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/7000018/report.pdf))

See also this map of the areas in the US which documents radon levels, which
however doesn't predict radon levels of each house, only points to a general
risk.

[https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-
radon...](https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-radon-zones-
and-state-contact-information#radonmap)

------
djsumdog
I lived in a garden unit in Chicago for a year. I hated it. Luckily it never
flooded, but that was always a worry. The bugs though; I hear you on that. I
could not get rid of ants no matter how much I cleaned and sprayed. It was a
constant battle with those bastards.

I remember the basement in my parent's home also having a bug problem when
growing up. I would hate to buy a unit like this that's essentially 100%
basement.

------
dundercoder
Does anyone know how the outer shell of underground missile silo bunkers is
constructed? Those go very far underground and presumably would be
impermeable.

~~~
driverdan
Missile silos are multiple feet thick and cost millions to build. They're an
entirely different category of building.

That said, most still have water penetration issues that need to be addressed.
I've seen many that have to have sump pumps running 24/7 to keep the water
out.

------
dekhn
When I was a kid, I dreamed up a whole underground house- a deep cylinder with
rooms radiating out from that (kind of like Wool). My dad said "the big
problems are getting natural light in, and keeping water out."

Over time I've come to realize just how significant that is. The light I feel
can be overcome- modern lighting can simulate the sun- but the constant water
intrusion will just drive you crazy.

~~~
samatman
Modern lighting cannot even vaguely simulate the sun.

If what you care about is the amount of light, and its temperature, then sure,
modern lighting can get you lots of lumens of the appropriate color.

Sunlight constantly changes, in a way that connects the inside space to the
outside world. There's no way to fake that.

------
tbsmartens
Adjacent related:

This guy bought an underground rocket silo and is documenting the repair
process:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd50A5qLv8FemVufSvDgkCQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd50A5qLv8FemVufSvDgkCQ)

*I remember hearing about it on HN in a similar discussion some time ago and thought it might be relevant for some of the people in this thread.

------
jakuboboza
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

------
aaron695
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-
underground-house/)

------
lumberjack
Why not just build a house with very thick stone outer walls? Seems like all
the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

~~~
dsr_
The article author didn't build the house, they bought it.

Somebody built that house because it was their dream project, and then sold it
because it turned into a nightmare.

If you want a thick stone house, you will need to acquire and move the stone.
The usual construction in the US is wood stick framing. It's so ubiquitous
that even finding a contractor who will work with steel framing instead of
wood is difficult. The material cost isn't awfully different, but the
techniques are.

Finding a contractor to handle stone would require a much, much larger budget.

------
leakyPipes
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.

------
fortran77
I'm not sure of underground domes, but I always dream of living in an
aboveground dome, like the ones here:

[https://www.monolithic.org/domes](https://www.monolithic.org/domes)

Could never talk the husband into it, though.

------
gotts
That was very interesting and informative read.

Actually that is my dream - to build an underground house. I'm very sensitive
to external noise so I'm ready to bear with cons of underground structure.

~~~
293984j29384
It seems like it'd be much much easier to build above ground with adequate
sound proofing or even just remoteness, neither of which are very expensive
when contrasted with building underground.

------
blaser-waffle
It appears this house was built during the 80s. Have newer designs mitigated
some of those challenges? e.g. better materials and lessons-learned about
waterproofing, etc.

------
Dahoon
All of those problems would be covered by insurance were I live. Glad I don't
have to buy a house with such little buyer protection.

------
lukevp
I grew up in an underground house, and it was not a good experience at all.
It’s effectively like your entire house is a basement.

------
footballnate29
I would never get this. what if it snows? you're blocked in for weeks.
terrible idea and construct

~~~
laurent92
And humidity. And light.

I have a traversing flat, and even then, the bathroom being a cul-de-sac, I
regularly ensure its air gets renewed. In fact, my washing machine leaked, the
wall smelled mold, I’ve had hard time getting rid of the smell. In a flat
where I can make air circulate!

Then about underground. Before opening the article I wondered “How can they
build under earth level and not have huge humidity problems?” Earth is
surprisingly wet, and humidity hoovers around. Plus rooms are i cul-de-sac,
only one opening. But again, I’m asthmatic due to mold in a house when I was a
child, so I certainly have developed my senses to avoid places which may put
me at risk.

Then about light. It’s always been obvious to avoid depression one must flood
the spaces in light. In fact, when I watch 007 from 1970, I wonder how people
didn’t get depressed with wooden and brown interiors, which are, by all other
artistic and craftsmanship considerations, absolutely beautiful. It is perhaps
the two first considerations for the house I’m trying to buy: Wide windows,
away from streets so I can keep them open and keep the inside dry, and light.

But I see one upside for their choice: Environmentalism recommends roof
gardens for temperature regulation without AC. If people give weight to an
environment criteria, it is legitimate.

------
sails
Images don't load. Or just me?

~~~
nelblu
Same here, it worked after enabling js.

------
KSteffensen
Isn't it a bad idea to use gas heating if you are worried about humidity?

~~~
sokoloff
Vented gas heating is fine. We use it and combustion gases (which do have a
lot of water vapor in then) are vented outside via a chimney in our case but
powered venting in other cases. (In our case, we take in outside air
throughout the building but the humidity in the outside air in winter is low
anyway. It is also possible to directly supply outside air for combustion and
this is the most common arrangement for new installation [for temperature
efficiency rather than humidity reasons].)

Unvented gas heating (think a construction "torpedo heater" or a camp stove)
does dump a lot of humidity into the space of course.

------
paulcole
> If we ever get rid of this albatross, would we ever again consider living in
> an underground house? Definitely.

Did the author even read the article they just read? Or do they want to write
a follow-up piece on the disaster of the second underground home they bought
15 years from now?

------
johnwheeler
Puzzling why they didn’t include inside pics with some of the damage.

------
amelius
> The safe, secure feeling during a storm.

Unless it causes a flood ...

------
piokoch
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.

~~~
dalbasal
Wooden houses are a mistake. They burn. Unless... Unless you're good at making
wooden houses that aren't likely to burn.

A failure isn't generally a proof that the main idea is wrong. Most failure
are execution failures. I imagine that if they built this house again, they'de
solve those problems.

In any case, the "ancestor" of mine that abandoned the mud hut he was born in
was my grandfather, Tom... who (incidentally) was a builder. That specific
style of mud hut (dob walls, thatched roof) is now making a comeback, with
modern conveniences like floors. It's funny how a 20th century house, a hobbit
hole and Denisova cave all fall into the same "ancestral" bucket.

~~~
lostlogin
> Wooden houses are a mistake

Every house in NZ is wooden. They work fine when built right, though we have
built them with too little insulation for too long.

~~~
jbay808
I think that's actually the parent's point. The quoted sentence is rhetorical.

------
didibus
I'm confused, how does it get: "Lots of natural light" if it's underground?

~~~
cheschire
The article clarifies this multiple times both in the primary article and the
Q&A section.

There are large windows at the front and the back of the house, in the atrium
and on the rear side exposed by the slope of the hill.

~~~
gauchojs
Still, there isn't a single picture from inside the house. A video showing how
is it to live inside a hill etc..

------
hengheng
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 ...

~~~
matthewmacleod
Bear in mind that this wasn't a house that they constructed – it was purchased
some years after construction from the previous owner.

