toward an underground architecture

Toward an underground architectureAn essay on underground

Toward an underground architectureAn essay on underground

Li rëza E leza j , Mar ine F leury, Benoî 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 qu’i l nous renvoie à l ’ i l l imité, voire à l ’ inf ini, le paysage mater-nel offre toujours à l ’homme aussi la patr ie, la chaleur et l ’abri. I l est un trésor du passé, de l ’histoire, de la culture et de la tradit ion, de la paix et de la l iber té, du bonheur et de l ’amour, du repos à la campagne, de la sol itude et de la santé retrouvée par rappor t à la frénésie du quotidien et aux bruits de la vi l le.”Once left the city, we can’t 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:“L’homme vient de la nature et y retourne. [...] Nous nous sentons entre de bonnes mains. Modestes et f iers à la fois. Nous sommes dans la nature, dans cette vaste forme qu’en f in de compte nous ne comprenons pas et qu’à l ’ instant de l ’expérience vécue, nous n’avons même pas besoin de comprendre, tant nous ressentons que nous


sommes par t ie d’el 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, c’est qu’on agrandissoit son logement à mesure que la petite famil le s’augmentoit. On creusoit alors dans le rocher : au fond de la dernière chambre, une por te, puis une autre chambre de la grandeur qu’on 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.


I f 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 nécessaire, trouver les bords pour ne pas être avalé 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 today’s 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 ténèbres sont bel les aussi. Si tu savais tout ce qu’y voient des yeux habitués à leur profondeur! I l y a des ombres qui passent et qu’on aimerait suivre dans leur vol! Par fois ce sont des cercles qui s’entrecroisent devant le regard et dont on ne voudrait plus sor t ir !... Vois-tu Harry, i l faut avoir vécu là pour comprendre ce que je ressens, ce que je ne puis t’exprimer!»


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 lumière ar t i f iciel le agit comme un accompagnement sélectif et intel l igent du parcours en nous aidant à observer tel ou tel de ses composants. La lumière 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 don’t 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 ILÄ Mar ja, In ter ior/Exter ior, Camera Obscura, 2004ILL. 3 DESCARTES René, Les pass ions de l ’âme, 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 Höhle_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 déchêné, 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 Comédie 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 tät Zür ich, 1914ILL. 23 SELMONI P ier ino, Géant , 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 creusées, mai-sons enter rées , Ed i t ions a l ternat ives, 1981.

HARD Gerhard, D ie 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 éd 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 lumière , 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 e t Cie, Par is , 2011.

VON MEIJENFELDT Ernst , Below ground leve l , Creat ing New Spaces for Contemporar y Arch i tecture , B i rkhäuser 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 à l ’é 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 rkhäuser Ver lag AG, 2008.

ZUMTHOR Peter, Atmosphères , B i rkhäuser Ver lag AG, 2008.

toward an underground architecture

Documents