Underground Potential for Urban Sustainability: Mapping Resources and Their Interactions with the Deep City Method

Abstract

Abstract:In the process of urban growth, the underground is often only addressed once all surface alternatives have been exhausted. Experience shows that this can lead to unforeseen conflicts (e.g., subsidence, groundwater pollution) and to lost opportunities (e.g., combined geothermal systems and building foundations or recycling of excavation materials). One challenge is how the underground potentials are assessed by urban actors; data collection, analysis and visualization for the different resources are often conducted in separate disciplinary corners and administrative divisions. This paper presents a mapping method developed within the Deep City project at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) and its application to San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio is interesting in its lack of major underground infrastructure and its few means and political support for short-term underground development. We will specifically look at the production of a series of interaction maps, an original mapping strategy that is complementary to the resource potential maps we have produced in prior work. After situating this research within larger theoretical and philosophical questions, we will show how mapping the combined potentiality of underground resources can serve as a compass for future interdisciplinary discussions that address the urban underground as a source of opportunity, rather than as an afterthought.

Subcity: Planning for a Sustainable Subsurface in Stockholm

“…As Admiraal and Cornaro (2016a) aptly point out, convincing decision-makers is not limited to politicians, but it also involves those who hold formal and informal influence over project outcomes, including elected officials, public servants, the private sector and society at large. The challenge in developing underground urban spaces is that they are often not as visible or accessible as above-ground areas (Doyle et al, 2016). This can make it more difficult to generate interest and support for these projects and to identify potential uses and benefits (Volchko et al, 2020).…”

A collaborative approach for urban underground space development toward sustainable development goals: Critical dimensions and future directions

“…Multiple efforts have been made to evaluate the so-called UUS resources, including physical space, geothermal energy, groundwater, and geomaterials. Some works, principally those from the Deep City Project [4,26,27,126,127], consider the four UUS assets comprehensively, while others deal with only one or two (mostly on physical space [128][129][130][131]) of the four UUS assets. The recent work of Price et al [132] incorporated the UUS asset of space continuum into the framework of ground-use optimization.…”

Not-in-My-Backyard: Legislation Requirements and Economic Analysis for Developing Underground Wastewater Treatment Plant in China

“…In comparison, as a new-born construction pattern, the legal requirements and documents for underground WWTP are very limited, but are needed to promote its fast developments [ 18 , 19 ]. Due to the remarkable differences between underground and conventional aboveground WWTPs in terms of process selection, building structure, vertical design, operation and maintenance, the requirements for conventional aboveground WWTPs cannot be directly used for underground plants [ 20 ]. For example, both underground and aboveground WWTPs apply for discharge standards and limits for municipal wastewater treatment plants (GB 18918-2002) since effluent water quality must be guaranteed in all cases.…”