toward_an_underground_architecture-libre.pdf

Toward an underground architectureAn essay on underground

Toward an underground architectureAn essay on underground

Li rza E leza j , Mar ine F leury, Beno t Jacques

helvet underground designlaba press, basel, 2013

Alors fous-moi la paix avec tes paysages!

Parle-moi du sous-sol!

Samuel Beckett, En attendant Godot

Toward an underground architecture

Foreword

The perceptions of the underground

Light and vision

Form and tacti l i ty

Sound and air

Live the nature

The architecture of the underground

Form and inhabit space

Cast the l ight

Relate to the exterior

Afterword


In the midst of a l l the issues of dens i f icat ion, people

are st r iv ing to be invent ive and f ind a way to dea l wi th

the increas ing populat ion. When at tempt ing to f ind new

p laces to bu i ld, an in terest in the subter ranean r ises

and d iscuss ions spur.

We decided that instead of see ing underground bui ld-

ing as a so lut ion we ca l l for because of a press ing

problem, we wanted to v iew i t as a land of oppor tu-

n i t ies wi th new arch i tectura l potent ia ls and qua l i t ies.

We are aware that the underground is perce ived as

the negat ive subst i tu te to the sur face. But we are

a lso aware that not on ly the underground possesses

many qua l i t ies, but l ike wi th everyth ing, i ts l imi ts can

st i r creat iv i ty and lead to beaut i fu l works. Michel Fou-

caul t , when speak ing about our percept ion of space,

c lear ly puts both k inds of spaces in the same pedes-

ta l o f dream and pass ion: The space of our pr imar y

percept ion, the space of our dreams and that of our

pass ions ho ld wi th in themselves qua l i t ies that seem in-

t r ins ic: there is a l ight , etherea l , t ransparent space, or

aga in a dark, rough, encumbered space; a space f rom


above, of summits, or on the cont rar y a space f rom

below of mud; or aga in a space that can be f lowing l ike

spark l ing water, or space that is f i xed, congealed, l ike

stone or cr ysta l .

I t is in th is sp i r i t that in th is essay we wi l l f i rs t lead you

through a journey that tends to descr ibe how we, as

underground t rave l le rs perce ive the underground spac-

es. We wi l l then determine i ts qua l i t ies and issues and

tempt to car r y i ts atmosphere. Based on th is , we wi l l

propose cer ta in bu i ld ing pr inc ip les that wi l l not on ly t r y

to he lp to des ign arch i tecture in the underground, but

they wi l l a lso a im to preserve the d is t inct ive character

of the subsur face.


Entering underground it is l ike submiting ourselves to new

principles. Our entire body is involved. While at the sur-

face we face a mult i tude of vanishing points, the under-

ground has an other dynamic. Solid surrounds us. Fa-

cades disappear taking away their streets and traff ic, the

horizon gets a new aspect and the sky tends to melt into

a black mass. The underground is marked by darkness as

well as by sti l lness. It is not impossible to feel enclosed.

It is therefore necessary to set up a mult i tude of st imuli.

Our senses are thus more sol l icited and a par t icular am-

biance of the place can emerge. Light and vision, form

and tacti l i ty, sound and air take here another dimension.

Each in its own manner has the power of representing the

space they occupy.

The underground travel ler needs famil iar points of refe-

rence in order to establ ish a l ink with the overworld as

we know it. Natural l ight is that possible l ink with the out-

side world, between ear th and sky. Light and vision are

the underground space guides. They define forms and


materials and do not stop to indicate where we stand.

They are proof of t ime, of hours and seasons. They re-

veal. They emplify. Natrual l ight being rare and precious,

the suppor t of those spaces with ar t i f icial l ight becomes

matter of impor tance and design. Being source of control,

i t incarnates the eventual creation of an other real i ty. I t

fashions new atmospheres. It suggests. It overwhelms.

But l ight is not the only impor tant thing in the unerground

feel ings. Al l our senses are different. We are more awake.

Contrasts being maybe the source of that sensit ivity. We

are less distracted by mil l ions of images, motions, speed

and noises. Inside the Ear th, there is only one t ime, one

action. Things are more precise. The underground space

l ives for i tself and we can feel i t. Maybe it is that feel ing

of which we are afraid. We think it can surprise us and

keep us there. But let us not panic, the underground only

wants to offer us something that does not exist in the

same manner in the overworld. It is a wolrd of romantism,

safety, retreat and protection. These are the feel ings we

come to feel underground when in presence of enough


famil iar points of reference.

Most of our sensory neurons that go to our brains, come

from our eyes and less from the other senses. That is why

it comes natural to think that we only perceive with the

eyes when in fact, the other senses play a crucial role.

When we go underground, we brace ourselves to discov-

er a new world of form and tactil ity whose nature we do

not know, and we had no way of anticipating from the out-

side. An underground building system is not visible in its

entirety on the sur face. At f irst, we do not know its scale,

i ts form, its organizational plan nor its depth. This may

lead to the uneasy feel ing of being lost and not control l ing

the situation. We can not posit ion ourselves in our mind

map as a dot in a volume. We do not know how deep we

can go, how large the bui lding is and we may get the con-

stant dead-end feel ing, the dead-end that may or may not

be just around the corner. That is why we want to grasp

our immediate surroundings and materials. The need or

even the desire to touch reveals itsself. Our hands be-


come a tool that we reach out to in order to understand

better. Touching awakens our conscience about our en-

vironment. we need to know what the rock feels l ike, its

temperature, its texture. When in an underground space,

especial ly in a natural one l ike a cave, but even in a man-

made one that has natural characterist ics, we undergo a

new sett ing. Rudolf Arnheim says Order is a necessary

condit ion for anything the human mind is to understand.

Is the accidental space of a cave orderly to us? Are its

non-Euclidian walls that come in different angles comfor t-

ing to us? Pierre von Meiss describes texture as a cer tain

pattern that is so closely repeated that our eye perceives

it as a whole. Are strat i f ication of a natural rock even per-

ceived as texture by us? We often speak of walls or col-

umns that generate spaces. Euclidian shapes, star t ing

from circles, squares then rectangles etc, have cer tain

focal points, they have determined centers, determined

diagonals and therefore we have spaces that we handle

as architects and grasp immediately as travel lers. But an

underground space is a different story. Here we have a


void of a what we cal l i rregular shape that is contained by

a big sol id mass. The atmospheric tension in it is differ-

ent and we do not handle materials but we undergo the

proper t ies of the local rock. But these are also different

potentials that the underground offers. The fact that we

ca not perceive the whole bui lding in the outside, gives

room for different designs that have labyrinthian qual it ies

and contain elements of surprise. When it comes to the

rooms in its-selves, what can also be associated to them

is a feel ing of seclusion, a feel ing of safety and that great

feel ing of l iv ing the ear th, the symbol of fer t i l i ty.

As a last perception, sound and air have also the power

of representing a space. It is through the reverberation

and its movement that we are able to perceive the extent

of the area. Sound speaks about space. It amplif ies it,

mult ipl ies it or minimizes it. Because we can hear so-

mething we are able to understand that we are par t of

that real i ty. In the underground this feel ing is major be-

cause of the recurrent feel ing of being shut in. There, the


presence of sound is wanted. Background noises gives

us indications. It could be discussions, machines, steps,

transpor ts or music, it always makes us feel that we take

par t in the underground activity. I t can al lude to safety,

consciousness and the feel ing of belonging to a place.

I ts indications evoke the space character to which it be-

longs. They can give rythm to it, soften it, mesure it and

our body gives proper value to them. Sound represents

everyday motions while natural l ight describes t ime.

The air ref lects the underground environment qual ity. In

our memory it is damp, heavy and fouled. On the other

hand, i f i t is associated to some exterior elements, its

value becomes nobler. But funni ly enough, as a visitor, i f

we f ind in our journey some overworld elements l ike an

atr ium, windows or plants, breathing wil l come a lot ea-

sier. The sensation of fresh air is directly connected with

those kinds of visions. The relat ion we have with the air is

also directly connected to the fact that we are surrounded

by sol id. Exposed materials express moisture and humi-

dity. We also do not have any relat ion with the sky and


sky is the perception of fresh air. Usually air surrounds us,

heats us or cools us. We are constantly in contact with

it while the underground gives the impression of being

isolated from it. One needs to create the void sensation,

the pleasure of fresh air which enlaces us. Underground

is the place where al l our sensations and perceptions are

awakened in a hidden environment and away from the

outside tumult.

As we have seen, l iv ing underground is al l about percep-

tions of the environment. But there is one more impor tant

topic to talk about, that speaks more of a spir i tual relat ion

with the environment. When we l ive underground, we l ive

in the Mother Ear th, we l ive the nature. Our t ime is un-

questionably the one of nature, which is more and more

present. The word nature is everywhere, in newspapers,

in publications, on screens and walls, and most of al l in

our spir i ts. The human being has a natural need of re-

appropriat ing the lost nature. It becomes central, even

essential, and not only due to the modern ecological con-


sciousness. A cer tain unease in the city and the urban

crisis create the demand for nature. The increasing re-

moteness from nature incites the desire for i t. Gerhard

Hard described it in the fol lowing way : Mais bien qui l

nous renvoie l i l l imit, voire l inf ini, le paysage mater-

nel offre toujours l homme aussi la patr ie, la chaleur et

l abri. I l est un trsor du pass, de l histoire, de la culture

et de la tradit ion, de la paix et de la l iber t, du bonheur et

de l amour, du repos la campagne, de la sol itude et de

la sant retrouve par rappor t la frnsie du quotidien

et aux bruits de la vi l le.

Once left the city, we cant talk about l iv ing the nature

without talking about Henry David Thoreau, who was the

f irst writer, maybe the f irst architect, who describes ar-

chitecture not as a form but as a relat ionship with the

natural environment. With his book Walden or the l i fe in

the woods, Thoreau tel ls us of his retreat. His program is

famous: I was going into the woods because I wished to

l ive del iberately, face only to essential facts of l i fe, and

see if I could not learn what it had to teach. According


to him, it is not enough to l ive in the nature, we must l ive

the nature. And in general, the ar t i fact is not opposed to

the nature, it extends and enriches it. Thoreau defines

straightaway the ideal of what wil l be cal led organic ar-

chitecture. Al l of a sudden, nature itself star ts being ar-

chitecture: My best room, my l iv ing room, is the pine

woods behind the house. Maybe in our vision, our best

room could be a cavern in the nature. The vir tue of a good

house in nature is to give the nature as house. Not only

would we be l iving in its midst, but we would contr ibute

in the protection of i ts many beautiful visual aspects, thus

preserving the sublime landscapes.

We could f inish with a sentence from Peter Zumthor, which

can say better than us can how sumptuous the nature is:

Lhomme vient de la nature et y retourne. [...] Nous nous

sentons entre de bonnes mains. Modestes et f iers la

fois. Nous sommes dans la nature, dans cette vaste forme

quen f in de compte nous ne comprenons pas et qu

l instant de l exprience vcue, nous navons mme pas

besoin de comprendre, tant nous ressentons que nous


sommes par t ie del le.

In this second par t of this essay, now that we have seen

the quality of the emotional perceptions of l iv ing under-

ground, we ask ourselves, as architects, how can we

conceive the architecture of the underground? We wil l try

to answer this question, we do not have the pretention to

have the last word, but this is our personal way of think-

ing. And we are going to relate you this in three chapters.

The f irst one is the foundation, to conceive architecture

into the ground, before everything, we have to understand

how to form and inhabit the space. Contrary to the

above ground architecture, we form spaces by a process

of matter subtraction. Therefore, to be in harmony with the

underground, the shape must change and adopt a proper

language. As we are not used to the underground, let us

do the exercise of imagining how this extraction should

be. The extraction generates the void which defines the

form and the space. We can al l imagine those two words;


we have thousands of images of forms and spaces. The

space hollows the rock, leaving form behind and some-

times goes on to creating an other room. If we repeat

this exercise, we can imagine different spaces, and we

understand that an impor tant fact of the underground ar-

chitecture is that only one void puts everything in relat ion

and binds al l spaces. Jean Houel describes very well this

process, in his Voyage pittoresque des Isles de Sici le, de

Lipari et de Malte in 1787: Ce qui est remarquable, cest

quon agrandissoit son logement mesure que la petite

famil le saugmentoit. On creusoit alors dans le rocher : au

fond de la dernire chambre, une por te, puis une autre

chambre de la grandeur quon vouloit ; ou bien on creu-

soit dans le plafond, et l on se pratiquoit un appar tement

au-dessus du sien.

We have seen that for most of people, being in the un-

derground provokes a feel ing of claustrophobia. In order

to remedy this bad sensation and the feel ing of an under-

ground labyrinth, the system should show a direction, it

should be anisotropic and heterogeneous.


If we now talk about the form, how do we show the qual-

it ies of the underground? The f irst thing, maybe obvious,

is that we should respect cer tain data inherent of mineral

elements, and express their different characterist ics. For

example, stones have trouble in bending resistance, that

is why we wil l prefer a system of vaults and arches which

are the best shape to discharge forces and can espouse

dist inct forms according to the morphology of the rock.

The range varies depending to the environment and the

quality of the stone. At the same time, arches help to

control spaces, i f one is lower than the others, it creates

two different spaces. It reminds us of a sentence from

the painter Alexandre Hollan, La forme est ncessaire,

trouver les bords pour ne pas tre aval par la profond-

eur. He was talking about a drawing of an oak-tree l ike

this one, but we can easi ly imagine this sentence for an

underground space (maybe even more).

When we think about a nice underground space, we al l

imagine some strong rock walls, and we feel good and

protected. We touch this wall, we approach our ear and if


we l isten well, we can hear the sound of the water f lowing

somewhere behind it. And what provokes our visual emo-

tion is the story that the rock tel ls us, shaped by the va-

garies of the t ime, the pressures, the cleavages, showing

different stratums, and sometimes rests of the passage

of dynamites or crowbars. For al l of those reasons in the

drawings of the excavation forms, we must respect the

stone and its strat i f ication. In a cer tain way, we have to let

the ear th l ive, i f we steri l ize the underground, it wi l l lose

the qual it ies of being an underground.

We know that in a cer tain par t of the underground con-

struction, the rock is loose and it is not possible to let

the rock visible. But we sti l l can express the fact of be-

ing underground and preserve its character. For instance,

thanks to geometry, i f the walls are not ver t ical but a bit

leaned and come closer at the top, we obtain a simple

tectonic effect that immediately gives the feel ing of an

underground. Or we also can express it by the material i ty

or the texture of the retaining wall; i t can reveal the exca-

vated material.


Once we form the space, we arr ive to an impor tant point:

how do we transform this void to an inhabitable space?

Today, we cannot l ive just in a nude cavern, as prehistoric

men, we need to add more separation walls, furniture and

al l todays techniques. So in order to express the differ-

ences between underground and what we know above

ground, what is added to make the place inhabitable

should be expressed as such. This does not prevent us

from doing it l ike in tradit ional troglodyte houses, where

the furniture and the stairs are included in the mass; nich-

es, cupboards and benches carved in the rock can coex-

ist with added wooden furniture.

One other special characterist ic of the underground is the

disappearance of the local identity, which means the dis-

appearance of different cultures. The underground under

the Alps, Nairobi, or Tokyo must be different and show

somehow his own above ground culture. The rock walls

would not be enough to express it, so what is added

should belong to the local identity and knowledge.

Once underground, an eminent question comes up: How


do we cast the light? The f irst vision that comes to mind is

that of obscurity. Coming with the latter, coldness, fouled

air, and feel ings of no-return are the regular impressions.

We al l have known a dark and damp cellar, a hidden cave

enclosing an unobtainable tresure or again an obstructed

and insalubrious basement. These common underground

preconceptions are not here by accident. The lack of

views and natural l ight evokes a feel ing of confinment.

But despite these prejudices we have never theless expe-

rimented in some undergrounds, there are many ver tues

and elements that can be handled better in those mystical

spaces. Jules Verne, one of those who best describes

the wonders of underground spaces, writes: Je pensais

seulement que les tnbres sont bel les aussi. Si tu savais

tout ce quy voient des yeux habitus leur profondeur! I l

y a des ombres qui passent et quon aimerait suivre dans

leur vol! Par fois ce sont des cercles qui sentrecroisent

devant le regard et dont on ne voudrait plus sor t ir !... Vois-

tu Harry, i l faut avoir vcu l pour comprendre ce que je

ressens, ce que je ne puis texprimer!


We understand well that the main underground topic

seems to be the lack of natural l ight. Sunlight provides

the feel ing of being connected to nature, the feel ing of

warmth and most of al l, the sense of t ime. However, we

should face the fact that it wi l l not always be possible to

bring in natural l ight in the subsur face. The dayl ight wil l

be rare there and the deeper we are the rarer it wi l l be.

And yet, what is rare is precious and even more beautiful

and should be treated as such. Spaces benefitt ing direct

natural l ight wil l be the jewell of a bui lding.

When we talk about l ight, we talk about obscurity too.

Any space is f irst of al l a black hol low in which we inser t

openings that bring in beams of sunl ight. The latter is able

to enhance the feel ing of a spacious or of a confined inte-

rior. The end of l ight, or the beginning of obscurity marks

the l imit of space.

As much as natural l ight is power ful l in assuming diffe-

rent statuses according to exterior characterist ics (t ime

of the day, atmosphere, seasons), ar t i f icial l ight can be

designed in different ways; colours, intensity, directions,


shadow and l ight patterns. Most of the t ime, undergrounds

are enl ighted conventional ly and uniformly which creates

monotonous spaces. Fur thermore, ar t i f ical l ight does not

even have the physiological benefits of the natural l ight.

But natural l ight has drawbacks too. It bl inds, to overheats

and is moody depending on the weather.

We can ask ourselves, how is it possible to give the un-

derground space qualit ies through the architecture of

l ight?

A good l ighting needs to consider the space characteris-

t ics, sur face colours and material i ty. They are revealed

thanks to the l ight which describes it.

Natural l ight enables the visitor to understand where he

is in space but also in t ime. It is the l ink with the ex-

terior which makes this possible. We can use different

techniques to reach very deep underground spaces with

natural l ight l ike transmission and reflection through wells,

canals or cables. But we have to confront the fact that at

a cer tain depth, natural l ight is hard to come by and the

use of ar t i f icial l ight becomes mandatory. But let us not


despair! Ar t i f icial l ight has much to offer and being iso-

lated from the outside, thanks to it we can create a whole

new real ity.

Ar t i f icial l ight, unl ike natural l ight which is constantly

changeable, is stable and able to underl ine detai ls, sha-

dows, to glori fy sur faces; it is constant in its action but

can also be modif ied attending to some precise desires.

I l luminating does not only mean giving the r ight quantity

of l ight to objects and spaces, but well mesuring, domina-

ting, control l ing and interpreting the surrounding space.

Also each type of l ight can have a different function in the

sense of Michel Malet: La lumire ar t i f iciel le agit comme

un accompagnement slectif et intel l igent du parcours en

nous aidant observer tel ou tel de ses composants.

La lumire naturel le, el le, agit comme un guide faci l i tant

notre orientation. Ar t i f icial l ight being the mostly used lu-

minous source in the underground due to the rarity of na-

tural l ight, represents an impor tant tool. We are individual-

ly able to control i t and the present technology gives back

the possibi l i ty of f lexibi l i ty from colours to quantity. Most


of the posit ive physiological effects created by natural

l ight come from ultraviolet waves and the visible por t ion of

the spectrum. With our technological means, it is possible

to use an ar t i f icial l ight which has these characterist ics.

Also, the temperature of the l ight source can be chosen

according to the colours of the i l luminated areas and thus

enhance the character of their material i ty. Another thing

we have to be careful with when casting ar t i f icial l ight,

is the orientation of the source. It is better not to use an

or thogonal projection on the sur faces (walls, cei l ings) but

a mult i tude of incidence angles which produce a uniform

rendering of the space and a feel ing a spaciousness. For

example, when indirect l ight is projected on the whole

cei l ing, we get the feel ing it is higher. Another cleverness

to amplify spaciousness is to let periferic sur faces in the

shadow in order to give an impression of inf inite spaces.

Indirect l ight and hidden sources also avoid dazzl ing.

This variety of types of l ighting causes many shadow

and l ight patterns. The latter produce visual st imulations


which are very helpful especial ly in the circulation areas.

They are supposed to guide us through the bui lding. Cir-

culation spaces should offer the comfor table sensation

of not being lost. Therefore indirect l ight coming through

the rooms to the corr idors for example, whether ar t i f icial

or natural, can lead us forward. In this case, it is the l ight

as cue.

Lastly, we wil l talk about the ways we can relate to the

exterior and enl ighten, even open the underground. The

act of entering the subsur face could be an abrupt one

that takes us from l ight to darkness, from warmth to cold,

from heat to dampness. When we think of i t we imagine

staircases going down, manholes or cave doors. But it

does not have to be that way. Not only the act of going

down does not have to resemble that but also the under-

ground spaces do not have to be black and cold. We wil l

talk here about four main topics: the frontal window, the

skyl ight, the entrance and the in-between space.

Frontal windows are a very current architectural element in


the sur face but are hard to come by in the underground.

A typical situation where the frontal window can be pos-

sible, is when a bui lding is implemented on a hi l lside.

The frontal window offers a view to the landscape. Since

it wi l l be a rare element in the underground, it wi l l have

to be designed and placed preciously. We propose that

this window over the view goes to individual rooms. When

it is possible it is impor tant that it is these spaces that

benefit from a direct connection to the landscape and to

natural l ight. These rooms are places where we spend a

lot of t ime alone. They are places of meditat ion, work,

int imacy and personal well-being. Which spaces they are

exactly, i t is to be interpreted in each case depending on

the program.

It is therefore impor tant that they do not have the monoto-

ny of isolat ion, but that they offer the evolution of dayl ight

and the distraction or enter tainment that offers a window.

It is the window of the view.

Since al l windows can not be ver t ical, the use of skyl ights

wil l take an impor tant place. We propose that skyl ights go


to common areas. Common areas are spaces where con-

tact with people is more frequent or where we are in the

presence of other distractions. Here, other architectural

elements such as height, propor t ions and connections to

other rooms take more impor tance.

A skyl ight which offers abundant l ight and a gl impse of

the mood of the sky, raises these rooms to a higher sta-

tus. This is why a window of the view is not the main

priority here. It is the window of the external reference.

Windows and skyl ights do not have to be the only l ink to

the exterior and looking outside does not have to be the

only way of communication with the sur face. What we

cal l in-between spaces are spaces that even though they

are below the ground level, they are greatly l inked to the

sur face. One example of in-between spaces are patios.

A patio offers an outside room, surrounded by walls but

open toward the sky. These proper t ies make it no differ-

ent from a sur face patio.

An atr ium is also a great connection to the exterior. The

atr ium has the advantage of containing circulation areas


and frontal windows of the spaces that it distr ibutes, thus

giving natural l ight. Both these spaces not only soften

the relat ion with the sur face but also help us perceive

the bui lding as a whole and guide us through it. They

might turn out to be crucial elements of the underground

architecture.

When it comes to the action of going underground, the

threshold may be too brusque. A cer tain transit ion should

be offered one way or another, unless of course, re-

producing a rabbit hole is an intention of design. As we

mentioned before, the benefit of the atr ium is that it can

contain circulation, we can go down through it and have

a constant relat ion to the underground and the sur face

at the same time. When under, we have a real view of

the sky and abundant natural l ight, and when outside,

we perceive how deep we are going and the scale of the

bui lding. Another way of going underground, is the pavi l-

ion entrance. That is to say a room on the sur face through

which we go f irst and where we f ind our way through. It is

a project in itself which is meant to guide us through the


entrance and offer an element of surprise.

Whatever the architect chooses to design, we think that

these thresholds should serve two purposes. First of al l,

they should express the motion towards the underground,

and second of al l they should contr ibute to the project

image that is lacking, the emerging elements wil l suggest

the hidden ones.


This text merely invites architects to ref lect on new po-

tentials even when they dont appear promising. Prejudic-

es and preconceptions can sometimes be slowdowns to

evolution.

The underground, l ike the skies, has always incited our

imaginations. By gathering our fascinations, ref lections

and keeping an open mind we are sure that through mod-

ern technology, we can design underground spaces to

great effect.


Lis t o f i l lust ra t ions:

ILL. 1 EL IASSON Olafur, The Weather Pro ject , 2003ILL. 2 P IR IL Mar ja, In ter ior/Exter ior, Camera Obscura, 2004ILL. 3 DESCARTES Ren, Les pass ions de l me, 1649ILL. 4 HOLLAN Alexandre, Forces en format ion, 2007-2009ILL. 5 ARANCIO Salvatore, B i rds, 2013ILL. 6 Sound Mi r ror, Uni ted K ingdom 1920ILL. 7 COROT Jean-Bapt is te, Souveni r de Mor tefonta ine, 2002. ILL. 8 Hhle_Schweiz_2, Source: LabaILL. 9 Sami-Arqu i tectos, Gruta de Tor res 2005ILL. 10 Sami-Arqu i tectos, Gruta de Tor res 2005ILL. 11 HOLLAN Alexandre, Le dchn, 2011ILL. 12 ZUMTHOR Peter, Bruder K laus F ie ld Chapel , 2007ILL. 13 EAMES Char les & Ray, B ik in i cha i r, 1951ILL. 14 APPIA Adolphe, La Comdie Div ine, 1921ILL. 15 ZUMTHOR Peter, Bruder K laus F ie ld Chapel , 2007ILL. 16 AVOTINS Jan is, Unt i t led, 2009ILL. 17 EL IASSON Olafur, Beauty, 1993ILL. 18 TURRELL James, Guggenheim Pro ject , 2013ILL. 19 ZUMTHOR Peter, Serpent ine Gal le r y Pav i l ion, 2011ILL. 20 VERMEER Johannes, De geograaf , 1668-1669ILL. 21 PEZO VON ELLRICHSHAUSEN, Casa Cien, 2008-2009ILL. 22 MOSER Kar l , Un iver is tt Zr ich, 1914ILL. 23 SELMONI P ier ino, Gant , 1979


Bib l iography:

CARMODY John, STERLING Raymond, Underground Space Des ign, A Guide to Subsur face Ut i l i za t ion and Des ign for People in Under-ground Spaces , Van Nost rand Reinhold, 1993.

CARRATU Rober to, Manualet to d i f is ica tecn ica appl icata a l l a rch i te t-tura , L i I l luminotecnica, Aracne, 2003.

CHARNEAU Nico le, TREBBI Jean-Char les, Maison creuses, mai-sons enter res , Ed i t ions a l ternat ives, 1981.

HARD Gerhard, Die Landshaf t der Sprache und d ie Landshaf t der Goegraphen. Semant ische und forschungslog ische Studien , Bonn 1970,

HOLLAN Alexandre, Je su is ce que je vo is , Le temps qu i l fa i t , 2006

HOUEL Jean P ier re, Voyage p i t toresque des Is les de Sic i le , de L ipar i e t de Mal te , Impr imer ie de Monsieur, 1782-1787

JAKOB Michael , Le paysage , In fo l io d i t ions, 2008.

KAHN Louis I . , Ne l l E. Johnson, Er ic Lee, Light is the Theme , Ya le Univers i ty Press, ed. rev ised 2012.

KAHN Louis I . , Si lence et lumire , Ed i t ions du L inteau, 2006.

PALLASMAA Juhani , PEREZ DE ARCE Rodr igo, PEZO Maur ic io, VON ELLRICHSCHAUSEN Sof ia, 2G N.61 Pezo von E l l r ichschausen , ed i -tor ia l Gustavo Gi l i , 2012.

THOREAU Henry, Walden, ou la v ie dans les bo is , Gal l imard Par is , 1990


VERNE Ju les, Les Indes no i res , J . Hetze l et Cie, Par is , 2011.

VON MEIJENFELDT Ernst , Below ground leve l , Creat ing New Spaces for Contemporar y Arch i tecture , B i rkhuser Ver lag AG, 2005.

VON MEISS P ier re et RADU F lor ine l , V ingt mi l le l ieux sous les ter res, Espaces publ ics souter ra ins , Presses poly techniques et un ivers i -ta i res romandes, Lausanne, 2004.

VON MEISS P ier re, De la forme au l ieu+ de la tecton ique, une in t ro-duct ion l tude de l a rch i tecture , Presses poly techniques et un iver-s i ta i res romandes, Lausanne, 2012.

ZUMTHOR Peter, Penser l a rch i tecture , B i rkhuser Ver lag AG, 2008.

ZUMTHOR Peter, Atmosphres , B i rkhuser Ver lag AG, 2008.

Documents

toward_an_underground_architecture-libre.pdf