What we look for in students - <AUTHOR> https://www.hackerschool.com/blog/20-what-we-look-for-in-students

<comment><USER2> I'm fine with a program like HS existing if people want to join it, but I'll have no respect for them until they treat both genders equally in terms of the tuition assistance.

Note that I'm all for women joining the program, but I'd presume people with the time to commit to the program are a) not working, and b) don't have much money, so it's completely unfair to exclude men to receive assistance just because they happen to be of the majority who are interested the field.

<comment><USER3> To be clear, there is no "tuition" and therefore no "tuition assistance". The living stipends are provided by external companies, like etsy, and they are provided as an outreach effort.

Now. On a purely practical note, HS is a business, and the core objective is to deliver excellent batch dynamics. The responsibility is to attendees and attendees only -- how are they delivering an experience that makes the time (and, indirectly, money) commitment of the students worth it? The issue of "fairness" does not enter the conversation because this is not a charity. Or, more straightforwardly, their responsibility is not to people who did not get in.

Now, ok, you might argue that you are not convinced that having a roughly- equal gender ratio is beneficial to the batch as a whole, but I am in the current batch and I'm telling you it makes a huge difference. If you don't believe me, let's chat over email or skype.

<comment><USER4> Do you think a lower standard is required of female applicants in the application process than of male applicants?

<comment><USER3> Absolutely not. I have been quite impressed with each and every female participant. It is incredibly obvious that no one in the batch was a pity case. But even if you don't believe this anecdotal evidence, consider that the ratio is worse this time around than any other batch. Since the facilitators are acutely aware of the batch balance (and other statistics), it clear to me that this decision was deliberate, and that it reflects a very strong male applicant pool this time around.

As for my speculation, given the rejection statistics, I'm guessing the HS facilitators could have chosen to admit many more females before this would have even been an issue that should have borne consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hacker School's filtering process seems to work well. I've been in two batches, and it has continually surprised me how they manage to bring so many smart people together, yet avoid the outwardly-arrogant assholes that seem prevalent in a traditional Computer Science or Engineering university setting.

<comment><USER6> Maybe not thinking you're hot shit and being willing to go back to school is a passive filter for non-arrogant people :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _One negative signal for us is if you previously programmed and then stopped (e.g., you studied CS and then become a product manager)._

Interesting. Why is this a negative signal?

<comment><AUTHOR> It depends on the specifics of the situation, but it can be a sign that the person doesn't actually like programming. This isn't always the case -- e.g., we've had alumni who had stopped programming to raise families -- but it's frequently true (e.g., for people who study CS and then get an MBA. When they apply to Hacker School it seems more often than not they're looking to find a cofounder or learn enough to hack together a prototype and aren't interested in programming as a craft, which is totally cool but not a fit for Hacker School).

<comment><USER8> What about people who have switched from programming into management, rejected that, and have gotten back to programming :)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's totally cool :)

(The thing that would make us skeptical is if the person just _said_ they wanted to get back into programming, but hadn't actually done it.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hi, This will be a tldr. I am a senior PhD student this fall 2013. I have always wanted to sharpen my C++ OOP skills and overall programming skills. I'd like to think I have a good grasp of computing systems since my phd is centered around computer architecture/vlsi. But in most times, when I read other people's code, mostly simulators with 50K-100K lines, I have a hard time following through as I think my fundamentals are not really strong. I spend about half the time learning new language intricacies I didn't know rather than understanding how the whole thing works. I have made some efforts into advancing my own understanding of the languages by studying in my own time (currently on Accelerated CPP by Koehnig) but then a conference paper deadline suddenly comes up and I have to reallocate my efforts. If not a conference, my professor will be writing a proposal and needs my help. I feel like there is always something that takes away my focus in learning. Would I make a good candidate for hacker school? Sometimes I feel like you guys are looking for Android/iOS/Ruby/Php programmers, although you have clearly stated that HS is language-agnostic, I still feel like I'd be the lone wolf in HS trying to learn advanced C++..

<comment><USER10> Hey, don't worry so much. You seem like you would be a great applicant. You obviously want success if you're a senior PhD student and I think you would be a great fit. Good luck to you! I hope the best.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the advise! I will definitely apply!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have a friend who has been to HackerSchool, and I hear its really awesome, I have been wanting to attend ever since then, sadly I can't afford to support myself there.

<comment><USER9> Would you know of someone who can write an in-depth review of HS?

<comment><USER11> This post in itself an in-depth review of HS, You can also read [https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=Hacker...](https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=Hacker+school&start=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As an ex-hacker schooler (I was there for two batches), I've been part of countless debates around the whole financial assistance part.

Assuming men are the majority who are interested in programming, and in turn are holding majority of the programming jobs, would you agree with me in hypothesizing that women need a little more security in leaving their jobs, which may not be in the programming field? (I knew quite a few of them who came in from different fields and did programming on the side).

Agreed that the situation in which women are now wrt programming jobs is a chain effect of a whole bunch of other things - with reasons as deep as cultural. But I think the financial assistance is not meant to differentiate, it is only meant to give security to those who need it. A generalisation on that front happened to be in the form of gender. I hope this gives a clearer picture.

Also, I was an international intake and even though I couldn't get a visa to take up a job in the States, HS has only been as helpful as they can be in helping me try.

</comment><comment><USER4> You forgot "You are financially well-off."

And here I was, excited at the prospect of an easy way out of this agonizing feedback loop.

<comment><USER13> Are you female? They have tuition assistance for women. Apparently men don't need financial assistance...

<comment><USER11> I don't think they mean it that way. They just want more women to participate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really feel that I meet all the requirements mentioned here, but sadly, I was rejected for the previous batch.

Looking back, I want to believe that I was rejected because I was living abroad and they probably felt I wasn't really sure about moving to The U.S. They also need people who can legally work here as the referrals are their business model.

Well, I came here anyway on a sabbatical year. Been learning iOS programming, attending meet-ups and meeting awesome people. Just finished my first app and it's doing pretty well on the App Store.

I might apply again, trying to convey everything they look for in my application.

<comment><USER15> I'm a facilitator at Hacker School, which makes me responsible for a large number of admissions decisions.

While we do make money through referrals, our ability to place someone at a company we work with is not something we consider while doing admissions. (This may be hard to believe, but trust me.) We have a significant number of international students, as well as students who we don't believe will get a job through us for one reason or the other, each batch. We admit based on whether we think someone will make a good Hacker Schooler.

We also try to respond to anyone who asks for clarification about a decision. I'd love to hear from you, and I'd be happy to look into your last application; especially so if you think we made a mistake! Ping me at email@example.com.

<comment><USER16> Curious about this - what if someone (say, me) has a job and has no immediate intention of leaving it, but _also_ wants to get better at programming and is willing to take a 3 month sabbatical to do so. Recognising that you're unlikely to capture a referral fee for such a person, would you truly ignore that in the admissions process?

<comment><USER5> They would. Your scenario is not uncommon. Seasoned vets in a secure position still raise the quality of the batch and rub off on the newbies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Regrettably, I'm not an autodidact and my ADD can sometimes get in the way when to learning programming. Knowing this from an applicant, does that dissuade you from accepting that person?

Much of what I have learned in programming already was simply finding ways to automate tasks at my current job - the motivation to learn was there, I suppose, and helped keep the ADD at bay. But, for all I know the stuff I wrote could just be child's play and no real indicator of talent. Something that led me to change my mind about applying a few months ago. Have any of your students felt something similar before they started attending?

<comment><USER10> This should NOT stop you from applying. Do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> For me, this is by far the most reassuring submission on HN this week.

</comment><comment><USER19> I really want to do this at some point, but I'm still in college, and the schedule never lines up with when school starts and ends. Have any college students attended hacker school/what do you guys think about college students attending? (I'm a Comp Eng major btw).

<comment><AUTHOR> College students are completely welcome, and we've had a number attend (everyone from first year undergrads to fifth year PhDs). We typically have the most during our summer batch, where it's been ~10% undergrads and ~10% grad students the past couple of summers.

We've also had a number of students who have taken a semester long leave from their BS/MS/PhD program.

We try to make our summer batch work for students, but with such variation in university schedules, it inevitably conflicts with some schools. I'm sorry to hear yours is one of them :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just curious. Could someone ballpark the minimum cost to support yourself to go to hacker school? this is something I've been thinking about doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> It depends a lot on your circumstances (e.g., if you have student loans, dependents, etc), but if you're just supporting your self and are willing to live cheaply, you can do it on $5 to 6k (this number is based on an informal poll of our students I did a few batches ago; it's also what I personally live off of during a batch).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> why is there a requirement of moving to nyc? An outlying suburb, borough or state isn't good? like living in nj etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's no requirement to move to NYC proper. We should make it clearer that we mean the metro area. We have several students commuting from NJ this batch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just applied. Crossing my fingers. Thanks for posting this.

<comment><USER10> I hope the best for you!</comment></comment>


Samsung Sets Its Reputation on Fire with Bogus DMCA Takedown Notices - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/10/samsung-sets-its-reputation-fire-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices <comment><USER2> _Last week, Samsung sent a series of takedown notices aimed at videos showing a GTA V mod in action. The modification replaced an in-game weapon with an exploding Samsung phone._

Sometimes it's a good thing to take a step back and laugh at yourself. It's a humbling experience and may even open opportunities to show your customer base who you are in moments of weakness.

<comment><USER3> While what they ended up doing is definitely worse, I wouldn't see them "taking it lightly" as natural too. After all, they've put the life of many in danger.

"Hey we messed up big time, here's the cause, here are the measures we took to prevent such things happening again. We also kindly ask everyone to consider the sensitivity of the issue regarding the affected customers" could be a good start.

<comment><USER4> Yes, and the way to do that is to let free speech be, and completely ignore the GTA/Samsung parody video.

Separately, IMO it's very much Streisand Effect here, as there's no way I'd've seen the GTA video without the takedown notice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >DMCA abuse flourishes because, in practice, companies that send improper notices don't face sufficiently serious consequences.

Is there any consequence of sending fake, improper, revenge... DCMA notices? Because, every discussion about DCMA so far leads me to believe that there's absolutely no down side to this practice.

<comment><USER6> Technically, yes. Submitters swear that their requests are valid under penalty of perjury.

Effectively, no, for 2 reasons:

1\. They must be prosecuted and lose for the penalty to have an effect. Courts have historically been lax in applying this. After all, a big content company probably has to file thousands or millions of requests, and everyone (and especially automated processes) make mistakes, right?

2\. EDIT - this is incorrect, see crilet2's post here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12805060](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12805060)

They're typically not submitting DMCA requests. YouTube's complaint system and automated content ID systems are not technically DMCA requests, they're just easier for Google and for submitters: [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en). Misuse can result in suspension of the YouTube account.

<comment><USER7> It's a really tough problem to solve for everyone.

You don't want to introduce a fee to file takedown notices, as then the people the law was arguably meant to protect (the small content creators) will not be able to make requests as easily, and you don't want to just allow people to abuse the system and use it like a "i want this gone" button.

<comment><USER8> The system is completely abused currently. Far better would be a small fee, or even a mostly manual hoop to jump through for demonstrating ownership & infringement. This scales properly, so the small producers aren't hurt much by it and the bit content owners can't run roughshod over everyone with a few scripts.

<comment><USER7> But the "scaling" here isn't only based on the number of things you create, but also the number of people that try to violate the copyright, and the number of times they do it.

If I make one thing, and it costs $10 to file a takedown, then the "copyright violators" can bleed me dry by just re-uploading it hundreds or thousands of times.

It's already a massive time sink to make the takedowns, in my opinion adding a monetary cost will just swing the pendulum the complete opposite direction.

<comment><USER8> I was unclear - I think the cost should be put on _demonstrating ownership_ , but given that takedowns could be easier to manage so long as fair use is protected.

<comment><USER9> You could have no fee for the first X intellectual properties you defend or the first Y DMCA requests you file every year (whichever is lower), and then introduce fees when you go past the limit.

It feels odd to price a public legal request like it were a commercial service, but it might be the most fair solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Every time a big company tries to strong arm an individual to take down something, esp something that is already viral in nature, the end result is it ends up getting more views and news. Yet, these companies never learn. Also in this day and age I think it's impossible to take a video down (s01e01 black mirror anyone?)

On the other hand, a detailed breakdown of what went wrong including details of the fuckup, with black and white details on what was fact and what is fiction (like Tesla's response to BBC) and the measure the company is taking to fix it generally helps to gain the trust back quickly.

<comment><USER11> I don't believe that the Streisand effect is a common outcome, not even for especially ridiculous cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While I'm always behind the EFF's stance on copyright and DMCA issues, I'm not sure whether this was a "DMCA takedown request" or direct access to YouTube's content ID management interface thingy (which has nothing to do with DMCA...)

If the latter, EFF is being a bit disingenuous claiming that Samsung has abused the DMCA here. It'd be yet another case of YT simply handing too much power to those with access to Content ID.

</comment><comment><USER6> It has been restored. Here is the email chain:

[https://imgur.com/a/teTNN](https://imgur.com/a/teTNN)

EDIT: The following paragraph is incorrect, I was misinformed - see the child post.

Also, this was almost certainly a YouTube takedown request, not a DMCA request. YouTube is free to take down whatever it likes, and Samsung is free to request a takedown for whatever it likes - whether it's a valid copyright claim or not. It's only when Samsung brings it through the courts rather than through YouTube's system that it becomes a DMCA request with legal requirements. Not that censorship or siding with certain companies is good for YouTube's reputation, or that submitting legally-meaningless take down requests is good for Samsung's, but it's important to distinguish the DMCA from simple requests.

<comment><USER13> You're spreading misinformation.

The DMCA requires carriers like Youtube to:

>[A service provider shall not be liable if] (E) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512)

The Youtube Copyright Strikes system being employed here (which is NOT the ContentID system) IS the DMCA Safe-Harbor compliant take-down system which was designed, developed and used exclusively because of the DMCA law!

The DMCA law does not provide for a government based form or system for takedowns, rather, it places the onus of a takedown system on the safe harbor who wishes to be safe.

This is DMCA request! You just apparently do not realize that the DMCA makes providers like Youtube create their own in-house DMCA take-down mechanisms.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't want to spread misinformation! It appears you are correct:

> (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use > of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the > copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

> (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and > under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on > behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

So where in this system is the good faith belief actually evaluated?

<comment><USER13> The issue is that the burden of validation is so great that the government demanded Google do it themselves, and Google realized the burden is so great that they basically treat all complaints as valid and in good faith, because the effort to actually hand validate each request would make it one of the most labor intensive divisions in all of Alphabet.

In terms of liability, Google would rather prematurely remove content (no penalty) than accidentally leave up covered material (violation of safe harbor, could be used by Verizon et al to indicate in another lawsuit that the entire system is flawed, thus safe harbor protection doesn't apply at all, and Google can be directly sued for violation of copyright, something Verizon would love!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Streisand effect will ensure Samsung is remembered for their exploding phones, just as Sony is remembered for their root-kit.

At best it doesn't become worse, but I can see this suddenly popping up in other games as there is a good incentive - guaranteed viral video.

<comment><USER15> The non-technical users are oblivious on Sony's rootkit fiasco and other DRM- related insults against customers (remember OtherOS for PS3?).

On the other hand, Samsung's Note brand is pretty much ruined and Samsung phone/tablet division will have hard time recovering from this.

The other day I was on a flight and we were warned to report any Samsung Note 7 device on board as they pose danger for airplane safety. This was after we went through security control where such device would be detected and dealt with. This isn't going away anytime soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd say this would be a textbook example of a "bad faith" takedown request. Surely any competent legal team would know that satire covers fair use, and they decided to proceed with it anyway.

<comment><USER12> EFF says there's no viable copyright claim. If there's not copyright claim, there's no "fair use" to consider - the creator is simply free to continue doing what they do; in this case, making fun of Samsung's exploding phone troubles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Except nowhere in this or the linked articles does it actually state this was a DMCA rather than a Content-ID takedown. I'd expect the EFF to know the difference.

<comment><USER18> Content ID is automatic and relies on matching fingerprints of existing video. If you upload something that's known to be copyrighted and where the fingerprint is already (or subsequently becomes) known, content ID is what monetises or blocks the video. You don't get copyright strikes for content ID hits, and such a hit is not a "takedown" \- that term refers to cases where a copyright holder notifies youtube that a specific video infringes their rights. THAT is when you get a copyright strike.

You have, of course, the ability to appeal - basically saying "Samsung are full of shit, put my video back and tell them to sue me if they don't like it" and that's exactly what happened here.

<comment><USER17> Ah - my fault - I thought it was the general term for the private agreements that let certain companies take down stuff at will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The EFF has trouble with understanding Copyright on a regular basis. No, really, I've been following them long enough (partially in agreement, partially out of balance against the content industry) to know they take a very extreme position - an outlier, almost a FUD type position - and work backwards to show how whatever instance they decry at the time is a terrible wrong, an indicator of the downfall of society, blah blah blah. They're habitual at this and it's pretty annoying.

Commentary is protected speech. Parody is protected speech. Satire is not protected speech.

As noted by delinka, if Samsung has a private agreement with YouTube regarding sending notices to take down infringing material that is outside of the "official" DMCA channels (ex ContentID), then that's bothersome but not necessarily a point of legal recourse. So, if Samsung points to a video and tells YouTube that the video violates YouTube's ToS based on point X or Y, then YouTube and Samsung can effectively side-step DMCA. That leaves the EFF with a handful of air in this case.

The EFF has a worthwhile mission, but time and again I think they get a bit hysterical and disingenuous, which, to me, only backfires in the long run. YMMV.

<comment><USER20> This is Parody due to the extreme nature of the explosions not Satire. So, while Satire is not protected* this is clearly not Satire making that point irrelevant.

*Ed: I mean Satire is first amendment speech, but that does not make it fair use.

<comment><USER19> No, it's probably commentary, but if you'd like to explain to me how by definition it's a Parody (based on the Four Factor test) then by all means I'd like to read it. Otherwise you're just asserting a point without any grounding, re: Fair Use. As in, what your opinion of Fair Use is may not be aligned with the law so let's have a look at that.

The EFF is still a habitual abuser of language relating to Copyright, and I suppose that ticks off some people, but I fucking hate propaganda and they're guilty of it on a routine basis.

<comment><USER20> "while a parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, a satire uses the work to criticize something else, and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing" [http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectu...](http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf)

Clearly, this mod is making fun of the Nexus phone. Which then breaks the connection between Sony and the Videos. You don't have any rights to uses of a fair use derivative work.

<comment><USER19> So if it was simply a video making of the phone or its likeness (a S7 by the way, not Nexus) by mocking its technical prowess and then showing an explosion as a "feature, not a bug" then sure it'd be parody. Self-referential. Using the S7 as a detonator? Much more like commentary, though it's toeing close to satire in that the notion of the reference (comedic/etc) is not targeted at the phone itself but in an alternate application.

Like taking a tampon and shoving it up a person's nose as a way to stop bleeding from cocaine abuse and making an ad about it - that's not direct parody, and it's a lot closer to what's going on than some would like to acknowledge.

I do know very well there's a lot of over-reach when it comes to Fair Use but picking bad examples, like the EFF loves to do and then jack up with all sorts of FUD end of the world rhetoric, doesn't help.

<comment><USER20> It's not using the phone as a detonator it's using the phone as the bomb. Here, they put the video back up: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GhODn4FRoE)

You are physically throwing these phones and they can then detonate like a bomb or on impact like a grenade. At one point they look down and several phones are on the ground, later on these phones blow up. It would be like SNL making a fake add about an updated Ford Pinto where they added 10 kg of C4 thus preventing it from catching fire. (warning cars now detonate.)

Importantly, replacing the phone with an iPhone would not work as they are making fun of the defect. Thus, using the source material is directly required. AKA if you want to make fun of British people then using Sherlock homes is being lazy, but if you want to make fun of Sherlock homes you kind of need to reference him.

<comment><USER19> Saying "this phone sometimes explodes so it's a bomb now" isn't a parodic statement, can you follow? It's not following the protocol to be self- referential to make a point. It's just simply a "what if" manipulation of the existence of the item and a characteristic. Oh the S7 is a grenade now! That's satire, not parody. Not protected by Fair Use in the big picture.

Let me break it down more simplistically: If the GTA mod included the S7, and it could be used as a phone as intended, but the phone would blow up and kill your character at random, then that's a self-referencing S7 parody implementation. It's a really tedious differentiation, I know, I get it, but it's important because of how often the parody / satire / commentary terms sort of overlap in everyday chats but genuinely have distinct parameters, especially in Fair Use cases.

<comment><USER20> These phones can't literally be used as a grenade.

Parody "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre _with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect. "_ "produce a _humorously exaggerated imitation of. "_

On the other hand "satire uses the work to criticize something else"

So, simply having the phone fail in the same way as a real phone might not be Parody. Randomly cutting to a nuclear detonation would be.

Again: These phones can't literally be used as a grenade.

PS: Also, the line has nothing to do with how good a parody is. Bad art is still protected.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. To Ban Laptops in All Cabins of Flights from Europe, Officials Say - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/10/u-s-to-ban-laptops-in-all-cabins-of-flights-from-europe.html <comment><USER2> I wonder what the impact on number of flights will be. It is starting to become less and less appealing to fly to the US.

</comment><comment><USER3> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14311073)</comment>


We Don't Like Our Underground House - <AUTHOR> https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-House <comment><USER2> > 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.

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> 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.

<comment><USER5> Funny, I have heard them called French Drains

<comment><USER6> 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)_/¯

<comment><USER7> Franco-Prussian War, World War I, World War II...

<comment><USER6> </satire> ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER9> 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?

<comment><USER8> 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!

<comment><USER10> > 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.

<comment><USER9> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER12> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> 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.

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER13> 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...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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).

<comment><USER15> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 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.

<comment><USER18> 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.

<comment><USER19> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER21> 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.

<comment><USER19> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER23> > 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.

<comment><USER24> 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.

<comment><USER25> >the basement had a door which led straight out into the rear garden.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> 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?).

<comment><USER27> 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.

<comment><USER26> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 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.

<comment><USER29> RethinkDB in 2015.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> 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.

</comment><comment><USER31> 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.

</comment><comment><USER32> 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.

<comment><USER33> 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. "

<comment><USER34> 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.

<comment><USER35> > (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.

<comment><USER33> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> 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.

<comment><USER37> 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?

<comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER38> 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.

<comment><USER20> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> 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.

<comment><USER40> 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.

<comment><USER39> 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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER43> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> 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://email@example.com,-92.3296159,3a,75y,18...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-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://firstname.lastname@example.com,-92.3292783,3a,59.4y...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-92.3292783,3a,59.4y,182.97h,78.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scbbuei2C852uu8_pzXgMEA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER43> > 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.

</comment><comment><USER45> 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.

</comment><comment><USER46> What is up with all the deaths of people that cross this house? The realtor, the contractor giving an estimate..

<comment><USER47> Also most of the plants died as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> 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.

</comment><comment><USER49> > _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.

<comment><USER50> a dehumidifier would probably be more efficient than heating and cooling the air...

<comment><USER51> It is the same thing. A dehumidifier is just an Air conditioner followed by a heat pump.

Though I agree more efficient.

<comment><USER52> Said a different way;

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

<comment><USER50> air conditioner; does that mean adding a smell to the air?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER20> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> 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.

</comment><comment><USER56> "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.

</comment><comment><USER57> 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.

<comment><USER58> 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?

<comment><USER57> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> 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.

</comment><comment><USER60> 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.

<comment><USER61> Isn't it also in a desert which would remove all the mould and humidity issues?

<comment><USER62> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> 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.

</comment><comment><USER64> 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.

</comment><comment><USER65> 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.

</comment><comment><USER66> 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.

</comment><comment><USER67> 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.

</comment><comment><USER68> 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'

<comment><USER51> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> 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).

</comment><comment><USER70> 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.

<comment><USER71> 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)

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> 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.

</comment><comment><USER73> 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.

<comment><USER74> 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.

<comment><USER73> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> 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.

</comment><comment><USER76> 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!

</comment><comment><USER77> 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.

</comment><comment><USER78> 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?

<comment><USER51> 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.

<comment><USER78> Nice response. Thanks. I was looking for personal anecdotes and experiences here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> "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.

</comment><comment><USER35> 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.

<comment><USER80> 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?

<comment><USER81> 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)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> 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.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does anyone know how the outer shell of underground missile silo bunkers is constructed? Those go very far underground and presumably would be impermeable.

<comment><USER83> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> 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.

<comment><USER85> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> 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.

</comment><comment><USER87> 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

</comment><comment><USER88> 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/)

</comment><comment><USER89> Why not just build a house with very thick stone outer walls? Seems like all the advantages and none of the disadvantages.

<comment><USER90> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> 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.

</comment><comment><USER92> 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.

</comment><comment><USER93> 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.

<comment><USER94> 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.

</comment></comment><comment> 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.

</comment><comment><USER95> 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.

</comment><comment><USER96> 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.

</comment><comment><USER97> I would never get this. what if it snows? you're blocked in for weeks. terrible idea and construct

<comment><USER98> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Images don't load. Or just me?

<comment><USER100> Same here, it worked after enabling js.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Isn't it a bad idea to use gas heating if you are worried about humidity?

<comment><USER102> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> > 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?

</comment><comment><USER104> Puzzling why they didn't include inside pics with some of the damage.

</comment><comment><USER105> > The safe, secure feeling during a storm.

Unless it causes a flood ...

</comment><comment><USER106> 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.

<comment><USER15> 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.

<comment><USER107> > 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.

<comment><USER108> I think that's actually the parent's point. The quoted sentence is rhetorical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> I'm confused, how does it get: "Lots of natural light" if it's underground?

<comment><USER110> 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.

<comment><USER111> Still, there isn't a single picture from inside the house. A video showing how is it to live inside a hill etc..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> 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 ...

<comment><USER113> Bear in mind that this wasn't a house that they constructed – it was purchased some years after construction from the previous owner.</comment></comment>