3.1 3.

Article

Integrating Underground Space into

the Groundscape Resilience
Concept

Nerma Omićević, Tamara Zaninović and Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci

https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082406
 buildings
Article
Integrating Underground Space into the Groundscape
Resilience Concept
Nerma Omićević 1 , Tamara Zaninović 2, * and Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci 3

1 Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, International University of Sarajevo,

71210 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; nomicevic@ius.edu.ba
2 Department of Urban Planning, Spatial Planning and Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture,
University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3 Independent Researcher, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; bojanic.scitaroci@gmail.com
* Correspondence: tmaric@arhitekt.unizg.hr

Abstract: Underground space has always been used as a resilient solution in addressing the need
for safety in terms of climate conditions and defense purposes. This research seeks to recognize the
potential of the underground space in the city as a significant urban resilience strategy, with the aim
of revealing how contemporary underground architecture is integrated with the public spaces on
the surface and how this groundscape integration contributes to the quality of the use of the public
spaces to achieve urban resilience. Public spaces have a crucial role in the environmental, social, and
sustainable context of the city and are considered urban domains for spatial urban intervention that
contribute to urban resilience in its broader understanding. Based on the review of underground
space research and the comparative analysis of selected contemporary design projects, the research
explores the integration of underground space in correlation with its utilization model based on con‑
temporary design projects. The research results in the systematization of underground utilization
among underground infrastructure, underground living settlements, and urban development to of‑
fer insights into the enhancement of resilience planning through the contemporary multifunctional
usage of underground space. The contribution of this research is reflected in the methodology of de‑
veloping the criteria for a groundscape resilience concept, in terms of perceiving underground space
as an integral urban layer, its multifunctional utilization, and in terms of achieving urban resilience.

Citation: Omićević, N.; Zaninović, T.; Keywords: underground; urban resilience; groundscape; urban integration; underground
Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci, B. Integrating architecture
Underground Space into the
Groundscape Resilience Concept.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082406 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Guozhu Zhang Throughout history, people have always felt the need to shape and modify their sur‑
roundings, above and below the surface of the Earth. The Earth’s surface is continuously
Received: 10 June 2024
evolving and changing as a result of a complex interaction between its external and internal
Revised: 2 July 2024
processes [1] (p. 3). These changes are evident in the transformation of the Earth’s land‑
Accepted: 19 July 2024
scapes and landforms [2] but also as a part of the urban development and urban transfor‑
Published: 3 August 2024
mations, which can be observed throughout history. The result of these processes enables
us to assume that the environment above ground could be underground tomorrow [1].
Therefore, this paper explores the contemporary architectural form of underground space
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
use that can reinforce urban resilience through the design and quality of use of the public
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. spaces on the surface.
This article is an open access article The concept of using underground space has always existed, mainly to reply to the
distributed under the terms and basic human needs in the form of shelter. There are many historical examples of people
conditions of the Creative Commons using underground spaces for different purposes and, due to their cultural value, they
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// fall within the concept of the underground built heritage, which comprises the architectural,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ urban, and landscape heritage below the surface of the earth [1] (p. 2). Despite its uni‑
4.0/). versal value, this concept still has no proposed common definition, unlike the underwater

Buildings 2024, 14, 2406. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082406 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 2 of 25

cultural heritage [3], which is defined as the heritage layer that has been partially or totally
under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years [4] (p. 51). It is necessary
to emphasize that underwater cultural heritage was initially a surface layer, but due to
the impact of change, it got shifted underwater and as such does not fall within the built
heritage framework. The need for protection and preservation of the underwater cultural
heritage was not officially recognized until 2001, when the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization adopted the Convention on the Protection of Under‑
water Cultural Heritage, with the main aim of protecting and preserving the underwater
cultural heritage from direct and indirect man‑made impact [5] (p. 2).
Although the term underground built heritage has no generally accepted definition, its
taxonomy has been the subject of recent research [1,3]. From the theoretical approach, its
context can be understood in the adopted Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which shows that among the listed properties, the
most common descriptions are related to the word cave and the word underground [3] (p.
1096). Although the word cave relates to different categories, it mostly falls under the use
for shelters, followed by the use for art and for religious purposes [3] (p. 1103). Following
this taxonomy, the underground built heritage comprises the “built environment” defined
as “human‑made (versus natural) resources and infrastructure designed to support human
activity, such as buildings, roads, parks, and other amenities” [1] (p. 3) below the surface of
the earth. Despite the divided terminological concepts, the utilization of the underground
space and underwater space is recognized as a unified concept. Due to the rapid popula‑
tion growth and increasing transportation problems, the use of the earth layer underwater
has become increasingly important. The coherence is best seen through the construction of
underground underwater tunnels, considered immersed passages or roadways, beneath a
body of water [6] (p. 325).
Based on the complex underground concept of taxonomy, underground space in this
research is understood as space that is situated below the ground level of the city, intended
for public use. This underground layer can be used in the form of infrastructure, sport and
recreational purposes, exhibition and culture facilities, and commercial use.
Underground space is considered the enclosed built environment below the ground,
and for this reason, it is perceived as an additional spatial layer of the city [7]. We can visu‑
alize this perception in the 1926 film Metropolis, directed by Fritz Lang, which illustrates
the division of the society, presenting the society above the ground with the sky, light, and
high‑rise buildings and the society below the ground with darkness and workers work‑
ing underneath to support the needs of the society above the ground. This perception
evokes many negative associations with and psychological concerns about the use of the
underground, such as death, fear of collapse, and feeling of disorientation [8]. This duality
and the accompanying concerns are still contemporary relatable motives that are repeat‑
edly artistically reinterpreted in various ways, as filmography keeps reconfirming with
films, such as Matrix (1999), Parasite (2019), and Alita: Battle Angel (2019), or the tv series
Arcane (2021). The integration of underground space with the surface can influence and
mitigate negative associations related to the use of underground space [7]. Therefore, it
is important to perceive the underground layer as an integral part of the city with all its
benefits along with challenges.
The social usage of underground space was historically noteworthy, through a combi‑
nation of fear and curiosity from ancient times driven by various social prejudices, religious
beliefs, and artistic visions. Christianity referred to the hell as the place underground. This
perception can also be seen during the period of Romanesque art, in The Last Judgement by
the sculptor Gislebertus [9], which illustrates a large figure of Christ enthroned and posi‑
tioned in the center with four angels. Under Christ’s feet, there are the unweighed souls,
waiting to be weighed and subsequently chosen as worthy or unworthy. In addition, the
human burial practice of both western and eastern societies explains the association of the
underground with death [10]. The way people perceive their environment relies mostly on
their bodily experience and attachment to the environment [10] (p. 5). For this reason, the
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 3 of 25
tt

perception of underground space is strongly influenced by the negative aspects of the use
of the underground [10]. Underground space has limited access to open outdoor spaces,
which leads to the feeling of isolation; the lack of windows leads to the feeling of restriction
in terms of evacuation; and the lack of landmarks leads to the feeling of disorientation and
eventually lowers the individuals perceived control, which reflects “the extent to which an
individual believes that a certain situation is controllable” [10] (p. 3).
Unlike the negative aspects related to social prejudice and religious beliefs connected
with the underground, the positive aspects of the use of underground space can be seen in
the visionary works of artists and architects throughout history, such as Leonardo da Vinci
and Friedensreich Hundertwasser. The Renaissance inventor Leonardo da Vinci designed
his ideal city at the end of the 15th century. He envisioned the city consisting of various
levels. The lower level would be designed for trade and transportation, used by carriages,
pack animals, and boats, including an underground sewerage system, while the upper
level would be an open space, enjoyed by citizens and designed for pedestrians only [11].
Conceptualizing the city where the horizontal layer belongs to nature and the vertical layer
belongs to men is established in Hundertwasser’s 1974 depiction of a motorway placed
under land. In his work, The Green Motorway—the invisible, the inaudible, he envisioned a
highway through an open underground tunnel absorbing noise and directing the remain‑
ing noise vertically with trees growing within the tunnel and with visible sky [12]. The
interpretation of Leonardo da Vinci’s design of the Ideal city and Hunderwassers’s design
of The Green Motorway—the invisible, the inaudible is presented as a schematic section in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Scheme interpretation of Leonardo da Vinci’s design of The Ideal city (left) and Hun‑
derwassers’s design of The Green Motorway—the invisible, the inaudible (right). Figure drawings
by authors.

Over the last century, this perception of recognizing underground space as an inte‑
gral part of the urban environment and acknowledging its potential in the urban planning
process has become increasingly important as a significant resilience strategy to meet the
challenges of the future. As Kollarath et al., explain [13] (p. 1757), underground devel‑
opment can become a strategy for evolving urban areas that can cope with unpredictable
ff
changes and as such be used effectively in the planning process.
The need for an integrated approach in the use of underground space was also recog‑
nized by the French architect Domique Perrault. In his book “Groundscapes—Other
Topographies” [14], he introduces the concept of groundscapes as a subterranean form of
architecture exploring the spatial potentials of the underground space below the surface
with the aim of providing a resilient solution to the unpredictable urban challenges. Since
2018, the architect offers
ff an online course about the Groundscape Architecture in collabora‑
tion with subLab teachers Richard Nguyen, Ignacio Ferrer Rizzo, and Juan Fernandez An‑
drino at The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (The Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL), Switzerland. The course offers valuable insights into the con‑
temporary use of underground territory and design of underground architecture [15]. The
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 4 of 25

aim of the groundscape concept is to rethink the relationship between the underground
layer and the urban layer on the surface with a new understanding as an integrated urban
layer, which will enable a new form of urban living.
This research seeks to recognize the potential of the underground space as a signifi‑
cant urban resilience strategy, with the aim of revealing how contemporary underground
architecture is integrated with the public spaces on the surface and how this groundscape
integration contributes to the quality of the use of the public spaces to achieve urban
resilience. In the context of this research, resilience is considered the ability to absorb
shocks and to adapt, where resilient cities are understood as flexible, resourceful, and
integrated [16]. The resilience of cities is reflected by the capacity of cities and society
to cope with and adapt to any impact of change [16,17]. Therefore, the analyses are fo‑
cused on the urban dimension of the concept of resilience, which is a less explored as‑
pect of underground spaces because the engineering point of view is the primary focus of
most underground research. Furthermore, public spaces have a crucial role in the envi‑
ronmental, social, and sustainable context of the city and are considered “arenas for urban
resilience” [18] (p. 156). Public spaces in this research refer to urban spaces that are open,
accessible, and can be used by the public. These public spaces include all categories of the
street network, squares, and plazas and all categories of public green spaces and urban
spaces along the waterfronts [18] (p. 156). To achieve urban resilience, public spaces need
to be designed through specific urban interventions that ensure accessibility and use and
be able to cope with unpredictable extraordinary events. The research aims to reveal how
groundscape integration contributes to the accessibility and use of public spaces and sub‑
sequently to the achievement of urban resilience in cities. The contribution of this research
is reflected by developing the criteria for the groundscape resilience concept.
The overall structure of the paper begins with a theoretical context by exploring the
resilience and integration aspect of underground space use and the development of its
utilization in the city through a brief historical overview (Section 2). The systematization
of historical underground utilization in the city provides the basis for the comparative
analysis of the multifunctional usage of underground space, through selected contempo‑
rary design projects (Section 3). The research summarizes the findings of the analyzed
examples and concludes with defining the criteria for the groundscape resilience concept
(Sections 3 and 4). The research framework is outlined in a conceptual graph, summarizing
the research method sections (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual framework for research methodology. Scheme by authors.

Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 5 of 25

2. Review of Underground Space Research

The review of the existing research on the concept of underground space is divided
into three main sections, referring to the resilience aspect, integration aspect, and the de‑
velopment of the underground space in cities through history. The literature review was
conducted during the period of 2023 until 2024 based on interdisciplinary books and jour‑
nal articles on underground utilization, which included the following disciplines: tech‑
nology and civil engineering, architecture and planning, economy and management, and
sociology and history, together with the history of art and religion. The literature that
was used for the research was available online as open access and was found based on
a search with the following keywords: underground, built environment, heritage, land‑
scape, underground infrastructure, underground built settlements, urban resilience, social
resilience, and underground urbanism.

2.1. Resilience Aspect

The word resilience comes from the Latin word resilire, “the idea of resisting and
rebounding” [19] (p. 2). The concept of resilience was firstly applied in physics to de‑
fine the capacity of a system to withstand alteration and being able to recover [19] (p. 2),
but its modern conceptual framework is grounded in the ecological theory, revealing that
a system is more resilient if it manages to recover faster [20] (p. 5). With regard to the city,
the concept of resilience is understood as urban resilience, as the ability to adapt, in order
to overcome uncertainty, as well as the capacity for self‑organization prior to and during
times of need [19,21]. Based on this interpretation, the concept of resilience was later in‑
troduced in disaster research. Within the context of disaster framework, urban resilience
refers to the “the ability of a system and its components to anticipate, absorb and accom‑
modate or recover from the effect of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner,
through ensuring preservation, restoration and improvement of its essential basic struc‑
tures and functions” [22,23] (p. 21, p. 18).
Underground space has always been used as a resilient solution. With people seek‑
ing shelter, the underground built environment addressed the need for safety, in terms
of climate conditions and defense purposes [13], but it also facilitated the development of
ancient urban communities and addressed the growing needs for living space, in terms of
subterranean infrastructure networks [24]. Subsequently, underground space has become
an important part of the city’s urban development. Nowadays, cities are facing the con‑
sequences of the rapid growth of the world’s population and uncontrolled urbanization,
environmental changes, and disaster impact, as well as growing demands of the built en‑
vironment above the ground, in terms of urban infrastructure, land resources, and usable
land in urban areas [13,25]. These factors have raised the question of the sustainable ur‑
ban development of cities and led to an increased use of underground space, as a strategic
attempt to increase the value of land use and contribute to economic growth and subse‑
quently to improve the resilience of the city’s environment [26]. During the disaster impact,
underground space was mostly used for seeking shelter in the underground infrastructure
facilities. The potential of the use of underground space is not only evident in addressing
the growing needs of the contemporary world but in the preservation of the underground
built heritage, below the surface of the earth, crucial for the sustainable development of
contemporary cities.

2.2. Integration Aspect

Established psychological barriers of fear and unpleasantness present an issue in the
use of underground spaces for developing urban resilience. Negative associations with
the underground are strongly influenced by the degree of assimilation of the underground
layer and the surface above ground: in terms of functionality, by developing a functional
relationship of the surface and the underground space; in terms of spatial context, by cre‑
ating a physical connection with the above ground; and in terms of visual connectivity,
by introducing daylight [7] (p. 38). Like in any other spatial assignment, for people to
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 6 of 25

use (underground) places, they should be approachable, accessible, and walkable, which
means interconnected. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the highest possible degree
of groundscape integration [27] with the goal of underground and ground levels together
becoming the layer that represents the main public sphere as a whole.

Spatial–Social Aspects of Groundscape Integration

The four main groups of aspects as detected in the literature on underground spaces
are physical, psychological, functional, and typological aspects (Table 1). Physical aspects
of the underground deal with types of space and spatial characteristics, such as various lim‑
itations in size, scale, boundaries, connectivity elements, and layout organization. Psycho‑
logical aspects of the underground relate to human perception—senses, emotions,
and interactivity.

Table 1. Spatial–social aspects of groundscape integration developed by authors.

Aspects Physical Psychological

SPATIAL ELEMENTS AND ROLES Activity level
(dynamic, eventful, monotonous,
Infrastructure (canals, drainage,
uneventful)
installations, tunnels, cisterns)
Basement utility (garage, storage) Multisensory and synesthesia
Functional
level
Urban spaces (shopping centres,
(visual, olfactory, and tactile
stations, denivelations
experience)
Urban settlement (historical and
contemporary)
Vertical connections (nodes): RANGE OF EMOTIONS
stairs, lifts, escalators, buildings pleasant‑calm‑other positive
Typological Networks (line systems): metro,
shopping and sewerage systems, scary‑disturbing‑other negative
mines, caves, cities

Functional underground aspects are concerned with how people use underground
space and can be related to both physical and psychological aspects as suggested by
Table 1. As in general architectural practice, there are (public and private) roles for which
places are designed and underground spaces can, in that context, functionally assume the
infrastructural role, basement role with primary utility functions, various urban multipur‑
pose roles, such as centers (shopping, metro and theatre centers), and/or the role of urban
settlement when the underground network becomes a larger urban area. The underground
as an urban settlement can be observed through the historical and contemporary role. The
historical role is considered through the heritage aspect as traces of previous forms of life,
many of which are part of the recognized UNESCO Cultural Heritage List, which is elabo‑
rated on in Section 2.3 of the paper. The contemporary roles of underground cities are plans
with an active underground layer where multiple usages merge and these are cities with
metro lines and underground shopping malls. Functional aspects can also be explored
through human activities in the form of how people engage with underground space. The
activity level of usage can vary rhythmically depending on the time of the day and time of
the year.
Typological aspects of the underground can also be related to both the physical and
psychological integration of underground and ground levels. In the spatial context, this
integration is either an element (a node in various scales) or a system (a network of intercon‑
nected lines). Psychologically, there are positive and negative types of emotions connected
with underground spaces, both with a range of feelings that can be mixed in describing the
effect of the underground on people.
Based on the detected problems from the theoretical approach, the research further
presents a brief historical overview of the development of underground space in cities. Un‑
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 7 of 25

derground space has a rich history in its diverse forms of utilization. For this reason, the
focus of this paper is to understand the historical development of the underground space in
cities, by emphasizing the transformative aspect of its utilization. The underground space
in cities was firstly utilized in the form of underground urban infrastructure and then fur‑
ther developed by constructing underground built settlements, which subsequently influ‑
enced the underground urban development and the contemporary focus on sustainability
and resilience planning. Based on the examples from the literature review, the main aim
of this analysis is to observe the transformation in the use of underground space and its
heritage and resilience aspect.

2.3. Development of Underground Space in Cities—A Brief Historical Overview

2.3.1. Underground Urban Infrastructure
The earliest known example of urban infrastructure is the underground sewerage
channels from Mesopotamia (ca. 4000‑2500 BCE). Mesopotamian cities had effective drain‑
age systems for stormwater control and sanitary sewer systems. Storm water drainage sys‑
tems were constructed of sun‑dried bricks and cut stones [28] (p. 3938). Another example
of a well‑constructed drainage system was found in Scotland, in the village of Skara Brae
(ca between 3200 and 2200 BC). Archaeological excavations found a complex drainage
system that served as an early form of toilet facilities [28] (p. 3939). The utilization of
the underground continues with the Greeks and the Romans, with the development of
urban underground passageways and underground sewer systems. The most significant
hydraulic system of ancient Greece was the aqueduct of ancient Samos [24] (p. 19). The
aqueduct was built mainly for defense purposes, since in case of an enemy attack, the
city would lack the required water supply. The Romans continued to use aqueducts to
transport water, but from longer distances. One of the important large‑scale underground
tunnels from this period is the Cloaca Maxima in Rome, a drainage system that is still pre‑
served, and this was used by the Roman citizens [24] (p. 15). The Cloaca Maxima served in
wastewater removal, rainwater removal, and swamp drainage [28] (p. 3951). In addition
to the Cloaca Maxima, the Romans further constructed vaulted underground passageways
with small windows, known as the cryptoporticus tunnels [24] (p. 15).
During the 19th century, the underground was widely utilized for tunnel construc‑
tion. In this period, New York designed the city’s first aqueduct, known as the Croton
Aqueduct [24] (p. 24). The rapid population growth and contamination of available water
sources, such as wells and cisterns, led to the 1832 cholera outbreak in New York and urged
the need for a direct water source. The construction of the Croton Aqueduct lasted from
1837 until 1842. The aqueduct carried 45 million gallons (170,343.53 m3 ) of water daily
from a reservoir in Croton and brought the first water supply to New York city [29] (p. 2).
In urban history, the outbreaks highlighted urban vulnerability and were considered an
opportunity to understand the city and reshape it [30] (p. 9).
Subsequently, the development of urban underground infrastructure led to the con‑
struction of transportation subways, such as the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel in Brooklyn, New
York. The tunnel was constructed in 1844 to address the vehicular and pedestrian con‑
flicts derived from the growing urbanization and associated land demands [24] (p. 31).
Another city that used underground tunnels for security and transport was London. The
idea of constructing an underground railway tunnel was first mentioned in 1851, during
the Great Exhibition (international exhibition of the industry of all nations) in London. The
underground railway network would connect the end stations of the Great Western Rail‑
way line and the Great Northern Railway line. The first six‑kilometer‑long section of the
London Underground, between Paddington and Farringdon Street, was opened on 10 Jan‑
uary 1863 [31] (p. 2). The early underground lines were constructed by cutting a shallow
trench flowing the road and laying railway tracks in the trench [32] (p. 30). They operated
using steam engines until 1905, but due to limited ventilation capacity, the grade lines of
tunnels had small depths, from 4 to 8 m [31] (p. 2). Ventilation shafts and openings were
positioned in multiple locations to allow natural light in the underground network but
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 8 of 25

also to enable the release of smoke and steam in the atmosphere [32] (p. 30). During the
First World War and the Second World War, the London underground railway was used
as a shelter [8] (p. 9). After the construction of the London Underground Network, many
other cities in the world decided to build subways, which increased the awareness of the
usage of underground space.

2.3.2. Underground Built Settlements—Ancient Underground Cities

There are many historical examples of underground built settlements, also known as
underground cities. The conception of underground cities in the literature refers to under‑
ground defense structure in the form of large interconnected systems and in the form of
small underground shelters [33] (p. 71) or to the classification as underground shelters,
with defense characteristics and underground built settlements, as places without obvious
defense characteristics [34] (p. 6). For the purpose of the research, three different exam‑
ples of underground built settlements are mentioned: the Derinkuyu underground city,
located in Cappadocia, Turkey, the Wieliczka Salt Mine underground complex in Poland,
and the Underground Building Complexes of Project Riese in Poland. One of the regions
where the underground defense structures are mostly spread is the Capaddocia region in
Turkey. More than 40 multi‑floor underground built settlements were identified in the Ca‑
padoccia region [35] (p. 65). These underground cities consisted of a complex network of
passages and tunnels, built to withstand attack and provide shelter for people. For these
purposes, they contained ventilation shafts, water tanks, niches for oil lamps, stables, and
moving stone doors to block corridors in the case of an attack [35] (p. 66). One of these cities
is the Derinkuyu underground city, built in 1300 BC [35] (p. 66). The Derinkuyu under‑
ground network contained 18 floors, with the deepest floor reaching the depth of 85 m [35]
(p. 66); [36] (p. 2253) with different spaces, such as schools, places for religious purposes,
living and social gathering, and storage for food and weapons. The underground city
could be accessed by one entrance only, which was protected by a large circular stone.
Floors did not have an exact placement or boundaries, and the vertical distances between
the floors were not equal [37] (p. 398). All sectors within the settlements were defended at
various levels, consisting of a series of millstone doors [34] (p. 6). The city had more than
50 ventilation shafts to allow air to circulate by itself [36] p. (2254).
Another example of an underground city is the Wieliczka Salt Mine underground
complex, located in the Malopolska province, Poland. The Malopolska province is one of
the oldest saltwork areas in Poland, from the middle Neolethic period (3500 BC). Salt ex‑
ploitation began in the 13th century and finished in 1996 [38] (p. 6). The underground
complex contains the following: 26 mining shafts, out of which 6 are still active, and
180 inter‑level shafts, reaching a depth of 327 m; 2391 chambers; and 245 km of galleries [38]
(p. 6). The Wieliczka Salt Mine Museum was established in 1951. In 1976 the museum
was listed in the register of national monuments and since 1978 inscribed in the UNSECO
World Heritage, together with the Bochnia Salt Mine as Royal Salt Mines [38] (p. 7). The
salt mine is currently used for touristic and healing purposes. The Teodor Wessal Cham‑
ber is used as a treatment room for rehabilitation, by using the unique microclimate of the
mine for treating respiratory diseases [38] (p. 7). Reaching a depth of 135 m, some of the
chambers have religious functions, and due to excellent acoustic quality, they are also used
for organizing ceremonial activities and concerts [38] (p. 7).
Furthermore, there are many examples of underground built settlements used for de‑
fense purposes and seeking shelter, but in relation to the contemporary context of this
research, it is also important to mention the military–historical aspect of its utilization.
Among these examples are the Underground Building Complexes of Project Riese, lo‑
cated in the Owl Mountains in Poland. Project Riese (German word for “giant”) was one
of the largest underground building projects from World War II. It was implemented from
1943 to 1945 to support the military activities from the Third Reich [39] (p. 37) The main
aim of the project was to localize armaments factories and the main headquarters, due to
the counterattack of the Red Army and the setbacks of the German troops in the East in
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 9 of 25

1943 [40] (p. 2). The project development included massive construction works in terms
of road networks, underground tunnels, and chambers as well as ground infrastructure.
It was the most expensive construction of military headquarters in Germany during this
period with high engineering standards [40] (p. 2). The construction work was performed
by forced labor and prisoners from the Gross‑Rosen concentration camp (present‑day Ro‑
goznica), where many people lost their lives due to malnutrition and work overload [41]
(p. 77); [40] (p. 3). The construction works were not completed, and with the arrival of the
Red Army, many of the underground structures were destroyed. Due to the high level of
secrecy involved in the project development and lack of documentation, it was difficult to
identify and localize all facilities that belonged to the Riese complex [40] (p. 3). Out of the
large‑scale project, six underground systems of tunnels were found: Rzeczka (560 m), Wlo‑
dariz (300 m), Osowka (1700 m), Jagowice (500 m), Soban (740), and Sokolec (800 m), [39]
(p. 36), [41] (p. 77). Only the underground tunnels of Rzeczka, Wlodariz, and Osowka are
open to the public and can be visited as tourist routes and museum exhibitions [39] (p. 38).

2.3.3. Underground Urban Development—Contemporary Underground Cities

The concept of underground urban development was first introduced in 1932, by the
architect Edouard Utudijan, under the term “urbanisme souterrain” or underground ur‑
banism, with the main aim of promoting better use of underground space in cities [42,43].
This concept raised many discussions among urban planners of that time, such as Ebenezer
Howard and Eugene Henard, and was firmly rejected by architects, such as Le Corbusier
and Frank Lloyd Wright, who considered the vehicle network an important part of their
plans [43]. One of the important planners in the development of underground urbanism
was Vincent Ponte. Ponte envisioned the city as a “multi‑level interconnected city, which
would facilitate core functions, interrelated above and below ground” [43] (p. 50). The
first strategic resource that was used to shape underground urbanism was the relocation
of space functions underground, in order to decrease the density above the surface and
release surface land [44] (p. 2). This was achieved with the renovation and reorganization
of the Louvre Museum. In 1981, the French President, Francois Mitterrand started the con‑
struction of the Grand Projects in Paris with the aim of redesigning cultural institutions in
France. The projects involved the design of individual buildings but also the urban design
of significant parts of Paris. Most of the Grand Projects were welcomed with national and
international protests [45]. One of the most debated projects was the Grande Pyramide du
Louvre, designed by the Chinese American architect Ieoh Ming Pei. Since most of the Grand
Projects incorporated designs with glass, the design of the glass steel pyramid in the cen‑
ter of the 17th century courtyard of the Louvre complex was not positively received [45].
Being the focal point of the urban complex, the pyramid connects the main sections of
the museum with the underground spaces (amphitheaters, research laboratories, restau‑
rants, and shops) and forms an integral part of the urban environment. In addition to
the main Louvre Pyramid, three smaller pyramids were incorporated in the urban design
and landscape of the complex. In 1985, an inverted pyramid was added on the opposite
side of the main pyramid [46]. With the main to ease the flow and concentration of visi‑
tors, the complex did not include public roadways, only direct access to the metro station
Louvre [42] (p. 5). Furthermore, extreme environmental changes and rapid urban growth
increased the use of underground space as a solution to meet the technological and re‑
source demands and create resilient cities that can withstand unpredictable changes. Sub‑
sequently, underground urban development progressed further using alternative energy
sources [13] by preserving groundwater, geothermal energy, and geomaterial resources,
named the Deep City Method [44] (p. 2). This sustainable model of urban underground de‑
velopment can be found in the examples of the underground city of Helsinki in Finland,
the Montreal underground city in Canada, and the underground city of Singapore. For
these cities, one of the main drivers of underground space development is climate condi‑
tions. The extremely cold winters in Helsinki and Montreal and the tropical climate with
heavy rainfall and humid conditions in Singapore have led to the development of under‑
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 10 of 25

ground pedestrian networks, to provide a comfortable gateway for the the citizens [13,47].
These underground pedestrian networks consist of public corridors linked between the
buildings and the streets below [43]. The historical overview of the underground utiliza‑
tion is summarized in Table 2 and presented through the transformation in the use of un‑
derground space and its heritage and resilience aspect.

Table 2. Historical overview of the underground utilization in cities—transformation in the under‑

ground space use based on a literature review. Table overview by authors.

Historical Overview Transformation in

Heritage Aspect Resilience Aspect
Example, Historical Period Underground Space Use
Underground Urban Infrastructure
Stormwater control Underground storm drainage
Underground Mesopotamia
Archeological excavations Collection of rainwater for systems and sanitary sewer
(4000–2500 BCE)
household and irrigation use systems
Included in the UNESCO Underground drainage
Skara Brae, Scotland (ca Planned settlement with
World Heritage List since system as an early form of
between 3200 and 2200 BC) hygienic quality
1992 toilet facilities
Urban underground
passageways and
Included in the UNESCO
Ancient Greece, underground sewer systems
World Heritage List since Defense purposes
6th Century BC Hydraulic
1999
systems—Aqueduct of
Ancient Samos
Underground Sewage
To carry away surface water system—Cloaca Maxima for
Ancient Rome,
Archeological excavations for sanitation and hygiene wastewater removal,
6th Century BC
purposes rainwater removal, and
swamp drainage
Water distribution for
Not formally recognized as
addressing disease outbreaks,
heritage, but as a landmark
New York, due to the lack of clean water Water distribution
site. Linear
from 1837 until 1842 and contaminated system—Croton Aqueduct
public park‑Old Croton
sources—first direct water
Aqueduct Walk
supply to New York city
Transport benefits—decrease Underground railway
Not formally recognized as
New York, 1844 in vehicular and pedestrian tunnel—the Atlantic Avenue
heritage
traffic conflicts and delays Tunnel in Brooklyn
Former Metropolitan Railway
Underground railway
London, 1863 tracks and stations are used Reduce street congestion
network—London
today
Underground Built Settlements—Ancient Underground Cities
Shelter and storage of goods
Included in the UNESCO
Cappadocia, Turkey, 8th Complex ventilation system
World Heritage List since Derinkuyu underground city
Century BC and protected well for natural
1985
airflow and water supply
Included in the UNESCO Underground complex for
Wieliczka Salt Mine Salt Mine and underground
World Heritage List since touristic and healing
underground complex city
1978 purposes—re‑use of heritage
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 11 of 25

Table 2. Cont.

Historical Overview Transformation in

Heritage Aspect Resilience Aspect
Example, Historical Period Underground Space Use
Underground building
projects from 1943 to 1945 to
support the military activities
Large‑scale project, six
of the Third Reich
Underground Building Not formally recognized as underground systems of
Out of six tunnels found,
Complexes of Project Riese heritage tunnels were found—re‑use
three are open to the public
of heritage
for tourist
purposes—Underground
Museum
Underground Urban Development—Contemporary Underground Cities
Climate resilience
Disaster
Contemporary Underground
resilience—transformation of
City of Helsinki use
Underground city of Helsinki Not formally recognized as underground shelters into
(underground network of
in Finland (1980—ongoing) heritage underground public spaces
bunkers with public spaces
for every‑day use (church,
for every‑day use)
museum, swimming hall,
etc.)
Contemporary Underground
City of Montreal (pedestrian
Montreal underground city in Not formally recognized as network linking hotels,
Climate resilience
Canada (1967—ongoing) heritage shopping centers, residential,
and commercial complexes,
etc.)
Contemporary Underground
Underground city of Not formally recognized as City of Singapore
Climate resilience
Singapore (2019—ongoing) heritage (Underground Master Plan
for building a resilient city)

Driven by the increasing population growth and lack of land resources, underground
cities have expanded the usage of underground space to meet future urban needs. As
such, they consist of many layers with transport infrastructure, commercial spaces, restau‑
rants, libraries, and sport facilities [13] (p. 1755). Despite the negative aspects of the un‑
derground perception, the contemporary usage of underground spaces can provide signif‑
icant benefits—by enabling safety in the case of natural and man‑made disasters, reducing
the occupation of surface land, reducing the need for heating and cooling capacity, trans‑
portation demands, travel time, decreasing the environmental impact on cities through
the preservation of natural vegetation, reducing noise pollution, and ultimately, improv‑
ing the quality of life on the surface [13] (p. 1754), [48] (p. 54).
In terms of disaster mitigation and prevention [23], the sustainable use of underground
space can be found in the example of the underground parking garage in Katwijk, a coastal
town in South Holland. The design of the underground garage was based on its inte‑
gration within the existing coastal landscape but also contributing to the possible flood
defense and protection of the coastline [49]. Another contemporary example of building
resilience by using underground space is the Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel
(SMART) in Kuala Lumpur. The tunnel is used for vehicle transportation and as a chan‑
nel for stormwater diversion [50] (p. 465). Similar disaster‑resilient design strategies can
be found in Tokyo’s flood defence infrastructure project, also known as the Metropolitan
Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel [51]. The tunnel system is used to drain flood
water into underground cylindrical shafts and to discharge it further into rivers to mitigate
and sustain flood impact.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 12 of 25

Although the contemporary use of underground space provides significant benefits

in resilience planning, it is still limited in terms of its functionality and reasoning, which is
mainly related to infrastructure utilization. This is based on a long‑standing practice where
civil engineers were considered experts in the underground space construction, while ar‑
chitects and planners were in charge of the planning on the surface. It lacks an interdisci‑
plinary approach, which would extend the limits of its beneficial use [14,52]. This research
seeks to show that it is important to improve the quality of life in both layers and further‑
more to consider ground and underground as integrated into one specific layer for possible
multiple public domain functions.

3. Contemporary Case Study Results

This section examines the results of the conducted research, based on the comparison
of the findings, in terms of the following: the transformative role of underground space
use and resilience planning (a) and the limited and extensive use of underground space
(b), to reveal in what other way underground space can and should be observed in order
to achieve urban resilience.
In terms of the transformative role of underground space use and resilience plan‑
ning (a), the heritage value of the underground space and its long history of utilization is
already recognized through the transformation in the use as urban infrastructure, under‑
ground built settlements, and underground urban development. The historical utilization
(Table 2) shows that the underground space should not be perceived as a service layer of the
city but understood as a heritage layer, for which active use is crucial for sustainable devel‑
opment. Despite technological restrictions, the underground space use was functional in
terms of both living and infrastructure development. Today, technological achievements
enable the multi‑purpose use of underground space, which is evident through the contem‑
porary utilization in terms of disaster and climate resilience planning. The underground
master plan of Helsinki was initially developed for shelter purposes with multi‑functional
public spaces that could quickly transform into shelters if the need arises. The under‑
ground city of Montreal was built as a climate‑resilience strategy, while the underground
master plan of Singapore is focused on enhancing urban resilience planning, through the
systematic utilization of underground space for future needs.
Based on the limited vs. extensive use of underground space (b), the research high‑
lights the possibility of multifunctional underground utilization. There are public spaces
that are useful to people and require no natural light but are mostly avoided in under‑
ground planning development. This raises questions, such as what are those spaces that
do not require natural light in terms of their functionality and why those places are mostly
not considered in underground urban development. Those spaces include theatres, cin‑
emas, movie sets and audio recording studios, libraries, shopping centers, museums—
exhibitions and aquariums, planetariums, saunas, hospital operating rooms, therapy cen‑
ters, research centers with laboratories, and others. Exceptions and examples of these ty‑
pologies can be found in underground space design, which confirms that the underground
level is more than just infrastructure—it can function as a public domain and should be an
integral part of groundscape design and planning. This is evident in great numbers of con‑
temporary architecture projects that emphasize the value and utilization of underground
space. Out of these, 20 contemporary examples (Table 3) are selected based on the way
the underground architecture is integrated with the public spaces on the surface and how
this contributes to urban resilience. The examples are further divided into five categories:
infrastructure design projects; cultural design projects; sport facilities and underground of‑
fices, according to the set definition of underground space in the first chapter of the paper.
The selected examples are analyzed based on the presence of integration with the ground
layer and resilience strategies and their role in achieving urban resilience.
 ffi
ffi
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 13 of 25

Table 3. Contemporary examples of the underground space use—redesign of public spaces on the
surface layer. Table comparison developed by authors (with references and photo copyrights in the
article Appendix A).

Role in
Project Title, Integration with
Case Location, Underground Resilience Achieving
Author(s), Year Project Photo * the Ground
No. City, Country Utilization Strategies Urban
Built Layer
Resilience
UNDERGROUND TUNNELS AND PARKING (Infrastructure Design Projects)

d Protection of the
Underground Defensive coastal coastline
Integration with
Coastline of Parking Katwijk ijk protection for the future
Underground the
1. Katwijk, The an Zee, Royal l Functional Reducing
parking garage natural coastal
Netherlands Haskoning DHV, parking occupation of
DHV, environment
2016 requirements surface land for
parking

n-
Stormwater d
Reduce flash
Management
City Centre of el Infrastructure Flood water flooding
and Road Tunnel Dual purpose
Kuala without urban Management Reducing
2. (SMART), thethe underground ffi
Lumpur,
government and d tunnel
integration on Reduceffiffi
traffic demand on
Malaysia the surface congestion transportation
the private sector
on surface land
corporation, 2007 or
2007

Metropolitan - Flood water

Area Outer management
Mitigating and
UndergroundDis- The
preventing
Discharge el Infrastructure underground
Saitama climate change
Channel (G‑can Underground without urban space is
3. Perfecture, t), Element of
project), Japan flood tunnel integration on accessible to the
Tokyo, Japan tourism for
Institute of of the surface public through
raising disaster
Wastewater gi- paid tours and
awareness
Engineering virtual
Technology, 2006
l- experience

Preservation of
D. Diogo de Integration with Redesign of
heritage—
Menezes the surface public
Square/Miguel harmonious
Cascais, Square/Miguel Underground layer—square space—use of
4. integration with
Portugal Arruda ec- parking through the roof underground
the medieval
Arquitectos structure parking rooftops
s, stonewalls of
Associados, 2009 platform as public square
Cascais fortress

UNDERGROUND MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES, GALLERIES, AND PAVILIONS (Cultural Design Projects)

Preservation of
heritage—
renovation and
Integration with
Grande ide reorganization of Redefining the
the surface
Pyramide duCom- the Louvre urban square
Underground layer—square
5. Paris, France Louvre Complex, Museum and
museum through the roof
Ieoh Ming Pei, g Underground landscape—new
structure
1989 utilization to urban identity
pyramid
reduce the use of
the public layer
on the surface

Domes with
Climate‑
shafts
d ni responsive by
Amdavad ni overground
maintaining
Ahmedabad, Gufa, MF Underground provide entrance Sustain climate
6. temperature
India Hussain and BV
d BV Gallery and allow impact
inside to
Doshi, 1994 natural light to
withstand severe
enter the
summer heat
building

ł
łł
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 14 of 25

Table 3. Cont.

Role in
Project Title, Integration with
Case Location, Underground Resilience Achieving
Author(s), Year Project Photo * the Ground
No. City, Country Utilization Strategies Urban
Built Layer
Resilience
Integration with
Rynek
Rynek Under- the public
Underground market Preservation of
Museum, łłł
um, Market Square square—a the archeological
Krakow, Re‑use of
7. Andrzej łuczk
ł Underground fountain that findings below
Poland existing heritage
Kadłuczk and, Museum provides the main market
Dominik skylight through square
2010
Przygodzki, 2010 a 4‑sided
pyramid

Gal-
Serpentine Sunken pavilion The design
n,
Gallery 2012 raising 1.5 m celebrates the Urban
London,
London, Herzogde above ground legacy and acupuncture—
8. United Pavilion
& de Meuron Ai level with hidden history of regenerating
Kingdom
and Ai Weiwei, floating platform its previous public spaces
2012 roof pavilions

Integration with
the existing trees
Increase green
City Park, House of Music, ic, through the
spaces and trees Rehabilitation of
9. Budapest, Sou Fujimoto,
moto, Museum holes on the roof
to decrease air the city park
Hungary 2014 structure,
pollution
allowing natural
light to enter

Reuse of existing
heritage
Creating a new
Integration of the The concept of
cultural place as
Sand dune, galleries with the memorials in
Tirpitztz
Bunker,
tz Bunker, contrast to the
10. Blåvand, tz
BIG,tz
Museum natural sand post‑disaster
Denmark tz2017 dune
war history of
rehabilitation as
the site
environment a method of
Memorialization
urban
regeneration
Sense of
connection to the
city, whilst being
- Shapes in the underground
Amos Rex
Plaza, ceiling provide and
Museum, New urban
11. Helsinki, Museum strategically presence in
JKMM ts, identity
Finland framed views to urban context
Architects, 2018
the streetscape Reuse of a
formerly used
bus station
underground
Integration with
the
Reducing the
Datong, city’s surface
scale of the
Shanxi through the Redefining city’s
Datong Art Mu- building
Province, pyramidal cultural
12. Museum, Foster + Museum Orientation of
People’s roofscape plaza—new
+ Partners, 2021 the windows
Republic of 2021 The building’s urban identity
minimizes solar
China sculptural form
gain
becomes the
city’s landscape

The concept of
National
em- Integration with Preserving the memorials in
September 11
the Memorial history and post‑disaster
New York, Memorial rial Memorial
13. Plaza on the memory of the rehabilitation as
United States Museum, Davis vis Museum
surface through September 11 a method of
Brody Bond,
2014
, 2014 a pavilion tt attack
terrorist urban
regeneration
tt
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 15 of 25

Table 3. Cont.

Role in
Project Title, Integration with
Case Location, Underground tt
Resilience
tt Achieving
No. City, Country
Author(s), Year Project Photo *
Utilization
the Ground
tttt
Strategies Urban
Built Layer
Resilience

The concept of
shelter,
resembling
Integration with
Coastal UCCA Dune ArtArt caves, was used
the Protection of the
landscape, Museum, OPEN as a narrative for
14. Museum, OPEN Museum dune—museum vulnerable dune
Qinhuangdao, Architecture, the museum
is carved into the ecosystem
China 2018 re, 2018 design
sand
Preservation of
the natural
landscape

Integration with The interior

the natural design provides New form of
environment on experience of the harmonious
Library in the
Kurkku Fields, the ground place without integration of
Earth, Hiroshi i
15. Kisarazu, Library layer—the encountering nature and
Nakamura &
Japan library is architectural human
NAP, 2022
seamlessly elements, such as activity—nature
concealed columns and preservation
underneath beams

Entrance Preserving the

tunnel— history and
Reinventing
escalator memory through
cultural
Book enclosed in a temple‑like
Fangsuo Book traditions and
Chengdu, sculpted space design,
16. Store, Chu h- Library, Store values‑ the
China meteorite‑like inspired by the
Chih‑Kang, 2015 ancient concept
structure Buddhist
of scripture
Intentional temples and the
libraries
design concept scripture
of separation libraries

UNDERGOUND RELIGIOUS PLACES (Cultural Design Projects)

Design is well
Preservation of
integrated with
the granite rock
Temppeliaukio
ppeliaukio Integration with the unique
Töölö neigh‑ of the square
Church, Timo nd the ground geological
bourhood Underground Water from the
17. and Tuomo layer— characteristics of
Finland, church bedrock is
Suomalainen, a- Temppeliaukio the square—
Helsinki collected in small
1961–1969 69 square preservation of
channels in the
nature and
floor
urban identity
UNDERGOUND SPORT FACILITIES
Design
adaptation to
harsh
Entrance lies environmental
adjacent to the conditions
ALMA Sports domed roof at Taking
Atacama
ground level, but advantage of the Adapting to
Desert, ALMA Hall, Benjamín n
18. Sport Centre currently (during geothermal environmental
Observatory, Murúa c- research 2023) energy of the impact
Chile Arquitectos, 2023 the design lacks place and
urban reducing the
integration need for
mechanical
cooling and
heating
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 16 of 25

Table 3. Cont.

Role in
Project Title, Integration with
Case Location, Underground Resilience Achieving
Author(s), Year Project Photo * the Ground
No. City, Country Utilization Strategies Urban
Built Layer
Resilience

Integration with
the ground Transforming
Gymnasium el Hellerup layer—courtyard Low the gymnasium
Gammel
Courtyard, through the roof environmental courtyard into a
19. HellerupHall,
Sports
BIG, Sports Hall
Hellerup, of the sports hall, impact and good new social focal
Hall, BIG, 2013
Denmark which serves as indoor climate point—new
an interior and urban identity
exterior skin

UNDERGOUND OFFICES
Transformation
of an old‑World
Intentional lack
War II bunker
e of integration
Vita Berg Park,
Pionen—White
Entrance is ffi hall
into server
Mountain,
Mountain, Albert
Albert Underground ffi of the
and offices
20. Stockholm, carved into the Reuse of heritage
France‑Lanord office
ffi Swedish internet
Sweden ffi hard rock of Vita
Architects, 2008 service provider,
2008 Bergen—The
30 m underneath
White Mountains
the granite rocks
of Vita Berg Park
* Project photos details can be found in Appendix A.

The outlined contemporary examples (Table 3) encompass underground space utiliza‑

tion in the form of underground tunnels and parking, underground museums, libraries,
pavilions and galleries, underground religious spaces, underground sport facilities, and
underground office spaces. In terms of the presence of integration, with the ground layer,
ffi
ffi the integration with the surface layer lacks mostly in contempo‑
the research shows how
rary infrastructure projects, referring to the use of underground tunnels for flood mitiga‑
tion, as the underground road and flood tunnel in Kuala Lumpur and the underground
discharge channel in Tokyo. In terms of the design for underground parking spaces, the
examples of the underground parking in Katwijk and in Cascais enable integration with
the surface layer, by integrating the design with the public space on the surface. Despite
the need for an integrated underground urban development, there are examples that inten‑
tionally avoid the integration with the surface layer, due to the nature of reusing existing
underground spaces, such as the former World War II bunker in Stockholm and its transfor‑
mation into the Pionen underground office or due to the conceived design concept, based
on separation from the outside, such as the Fangsuo Bookffi
ffi Store in China.
To deepen the importance of the integration of the underground space with the public
space on the surface, the outlined examples from Table 3 are further presented in Table 4
in the form of a general matrix of their section schemes for the purpose of recognizing the
presence of groundscape integration. As outlined in chapter 1 of this paper, to achieve ur‑
ban resilience, public spaces need to be designed to ensure accessibility and use. Therefore,
the contemporary examples are analyzed based on the set spatial context of groundscape
integration (outlined in Table 1) in terms of the following: physical aspects through visual
connectivity and accessibility; typological aspects through vertical connectivity and roof
surface walkability; and functional aspects through their multi‑functional role.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 17 of 25

Table 4. Matrix of schemes—Exploring the spatial context of contemporary underground integration.

Table comparison and schematic drawings developed by authors.

Groundscape Integration
Project Section
Schematic Presentation Physical Typological
Functional Aspect
Aspect Aspect

Case Project Title, Author(s), Ground Layer

Connectivity

Accessibility

Connectivity

Roof Surface
Object Functional Multi—Functional

Walkability
No. Year Built

Vertical
Space Role

Visual
Water
Present +
Missing ‑
UNDERGROUND TUNNELS AND PARKING (Infrastructure Design Projects)

Coastal reinforcement
Underground Parking
with recreation area and
1. Katwijk an Zee, Royal + + + +
underground parking
HaskoningDHV, 2016
space

Stormwater Management
and Road Tunnel
Underground flood and
2. (SMART), the government ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
road tunnel
and the private sector
corporation, 2007

Metropolitan Area Outer

Underground Discharge
Underground flood
Channel (G‑can project),
3. diversion facility and ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Japan Institute of
touristic site
Wastewater Engineering
Technology, 2006

D. Diogo de Menezes
Square/Miguel Arruda Underground parking and
4. + + + +
Arquitectos Associados, public square
2009

UNDERGROUND MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES, GALLERIES, AND PAVILIONS (Cultural Design Projects)

Amdavad ni Gufa, MF
Underground gallery and
5. Hussain and BV Doshi, + + + +
park
1994

Grande Pyramide du
Underground museum
6. Louvre Complex, Ieoh + + + ‑
and public square
Ming Pei, 1989

Serpentine Gallery 2012

London, Herzog & de
7. Sunken pavilion and park + + + ‑
Meuron and Ai Weiwei,
2012

Rynek Underground
8. ł
Museum, Andrzej Underground museum
+ ‑ + ‑
Kadłuczk and, Dominik with market square
Przygodzki, 2010

ł
łł of Music, Sou
House
9. Museum and park + + + +
ł
Fujimoto, 2014

ł
ł
ł
ł
tz
ł
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 18 of 25

Table 4. Cont.

Groundscape Integration
Project Section
Schematic Presentation Physical Typological
Functional Aspect
Aspect Aspect

Case tz
tz Title, Author(s),
Project Ground Layer

Connectivity

Accessibility

Connectivity

Roof Surface
Object Functional Multi—Functional

Walkability
No. Year Built
tz

Vertical
Space Role

Visual
tz Water
tz Present +
Missing
tz
tz
‑
tz
10.
tz
Tirpitz Bunker, BIG, 2017 Museum and memorial + + + +

Amos Rex Museum, Museum and public

11. + + + +
JKMM Architects square

Datong Art Museum, Museum and public

12. + + + ‑
Foster + Partners, 2021 square with park

National September 11
Memorial museum and
13. Memorial Museum, Davis ‑ + + +
memorial public square
Brody Bond, 2014

UCCA Dune Art Museum, Museum embedded in

14. + + + +
OPEN Architecture, 2018 coastal landscape

Library in the Earth,

Museum embedded in
15. Hiroshi Nakamura & + + + +
natural landscape
NAP, 2022

Fangsuo Book Store, Chu

16. Museum and bookstore ‑ + + +
Chih‑Kang, 2015

UNDERGOUND RELIGIOUS PLACES (Cultural Design Projects)

Temppeliaukio Church, Place for worship and

17. Timo and Tuomo concert venue with public + + + ‑
Suomalainen, 1961–1969 square /temple Square

UNDERGOUND SPORT FACILITIES

ALMA Sports Hall,

18. Benjamín Murúa Sport complex ‑ + + ‑
Arquitectos, 2023

Gammel Hellerup Sports Sport hall and school

19. + + + +
Hall, BIG, 2013 courtyard

ł UNDERGOUND OFFICES
ł
ł
ffi
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 19 of 25

Table 4. Cont.

Groundscape Integration
Project Section
Schematic Presentation Physical Typological
Functional Aspect
Aspect Aspect

Case Project Title, Author(s), Ground Layer

Connectivity

Accessibility

Connectivity

Roof Surface
Object Functional Multi—Functional

Walkability
No. Year Built

Vertical
Space Role

Visual
Water
Present +
Missing ‑

Pionen—White Mountain,
20. Albert France‑Lanord ffispace in cave
Office ‑ + ‑ ‑
Architects, 2008

4. Discussion
From the outlined examples (Table 4), the research recognizes how the contemporary
underground projects are mostly designed with a multi‑functional purpose, which con‑
tributes to the functional aspect of underground urban integration. However, it is impor‑
tant to emphasize that this multi‑functional utilization is still in the domain of multidis‑
ciplinary design (where more than one discipline deals with the same problem indepen‑
dently), without an interdisciplinary approach (where multiple disciplines work together
on solving the problem integrally). The design of the underground infrastructure projects
related to flood mitigation shows the lack of underground integration, although the un‑
derground parking projects show the importance for an integrated design with the surface
layer. Other contemporary examples show the presence of accessibility and vertical con‑
nectivity in their design. Only a few examples lack visual connectivity, as recognized in the
design of Pionen—White Mountain office in Sweden,ffi the ALMA Sports Hall in Chile, the
Fangsuo bookstore in China, and the National September 11 Memorial Museum in New
York. The underground urban integration is also reinforced through the walkability on the
roof surface, which is not recognized in the design of the Pionen—White Mountain office
in Sweden, the ffi Photocatalytic Cave in Mexico, the Temppeliaukio Church in Finland, the
Serpentine Gallery in the UK, the Datong Museum in China, the complex of the Grande
Pyramide du Louvre in France, the Rynek Underground Museum in Poland, and in the
ALMA Sports Hall in Chile. It is important to emphasize that the examples of the complex
of the Grande Pyramide du Louvre and the Rynek Underground Museum are designed
with opposite aims. The design of the Grande Pyramide du Louvre focuses on integration
as a key aspect. The Rynek Underground Museum with its market square is discreetly
positioned. The design of the fountain does not look like an integration, and although
the underground museum below the market has a certain form of visual connectivity, the
underground museum below the market cannot be initially recognized.
Furthermore, the research shows how the underground space utilization in all pre‑
sented contemporary design projects plays a significant role in achieving urban resilience.
Underground parking projects contribute to disaster risk mitigation and the redesign of
open public spaces on the ground, by reducing the occupation of surface land and de‑
signing public squares and parks, while preserving landscape settings. Cultural design
projects with underground space use contribute to the regeneration, rehabilitation, and
redefinition of public spaces, by creating new urban identity asttrecognized in the design
of the complex of the Grande Pyramide du Louvre in France, Amos Rex Museum and
the Temppeliaukio Church in Finland, the Datong Museum in China, and the Gammel
Hellerup Sports Hall in Denmark, but also through the concept of memorialization [53],
which can be seen in the example of the National September 11 Memorial Museum in
ł New York. It is also evident how the underground cultural design projects are the ones
ł that stand out the most, indicating how architects have recognized the potential of un‑
ł derground space use for this function. In terms of heritage, the research shows that un‑
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 20 of 25

derground space utilization contributes to urban resilience through the re‑use of heritage,
which is evident in the design of the Underground Museum in Poland, the Pionen—White
Mountain underground office in Sweden, and the Tirpitz Bunker underground museum in
Denmark, but also in terms of reinventing cultural value by preserving history and mem‑
ory, evident through the design of the Fangsuo bookstore in China.
Based on the comparative findings, the research identifies three main criteria impor‑
tant for the planning and design of underground space in the city. These criteria refer to
the following: percieving underground space as integrated urban layer; enabling unlim‑
ited use of underground space, through multi‑functional underground utilization; and
using underground space as an opportunity for a achieving urban resilience but not
only through infrastructure use and development. The coherence of these criteria will al‑
low for an interdsciplinary approach in the research and design of urban underground
development, which can contribute to developing the groundscape resilience concept.
From the outlined examples it is evident that all underground design projects con‑
tribute to resilience planning through their design, but their integration with the ground
layer on the surface contributes to the quality of use of the public spaces and their fexi‑
bility in terms of adaptation. This reinforces their capability to cope in a changeble con‑
text and contributes to the achievement of urban resilience of the city. The schematic
model of the groundscape resilience concept is shown in Figure 3. It incorporates the
relation of the public space on the ground layer and the underground layer identified
as groundscape integration and its relation towards the required criteria for developing
groundscape resilience. The integrated groundscape approach includes the following:
unlimited utilization of underground space ensured by the functional aspect of spatial
integration—through the multifunctional role of undergound projects; spatial integration
through the typologial aspects—by enabling vertical connectivity and roof surface walk‑
ability; spatial integration thrrough physical aspects by enabling visual connectivity and
accessibility; diverse resilience strategies that contribute to resilience planning; and the
contribution to urban resilience through the quality of use of public spaces—by reinforc‑
ing groundscape integration.

Figure 3. Schematic model of the Groundscape Resilience Concept. Figure diagram by authors.

ffi
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 21 of 25

One of the objectives of this research and paper was to show how the concept of under‑
ground space can be diversely used and explored from various aspects. The results from
the literature review confirm the complexity of the presented problematics with historical
reinterpretations and multiple approaches towards the underground research. Consider‑
ing the difficulty in addressing the interdiciplinarity issues and complexity of planning the
integration of underground space into a groundscape resilience complex, this research was
limited in the contemporary case study scope from several viewpoints: 1. spatial limitation
focusing only on case studies within the urban setting; 2. the limited number of analysed
examples consisting of 20 representative case studies selected based on the research aim—
to link urban resilience and underground utilization; 3. categorization limitation where
housing examples were excluded because they are specific and covered through the his‑
torical overview typology. Furthermore, this paper shows that the enhancement of the
resilience concept needs to be explored in future studies by focusing on the distinct archi‑
tectural category and its underground contribution to urban resilience.
The groundscape resilience concept, as defined by this paper, is the first step towards
changing the understanding of the relation between the ground layer of the city and the
underground layer into an integrated groundscape, which can become an integral part of
city planning and redefine the form of urban living.

5. Conclusions
The main field of study within this research was related to the usage of underground
space from an urban and social perspective, which has not been studied enough in un‑
derground research. The research shows that underground space was initially connected
with negative associations, such as fear and death, derived from religious beliefs and so‑
cial prejudice. Despite this perception, people eventually realized its potential in terms
of infrastructure utilization, but also as a place for living, by seeking shelter and escape
from harsh climate conditions. Subsequently, underground built settlements evolved into
underground urban development and contemporary underground cites.
The overall work contributes to the understanding that underground space is more
than just infrastructure utilization. The contemporary examples outlined in Table 3 show
that infrastructure utilization is just one form of utilization. Other recognized forms of
underground utilization refer to underground cultural design projects, such as museums,
libraries, pavilions, and galleries, underground sport facilities, and underground office
space. The presented contemporary underground examples confirm the need for an in‑
terdisciplinary approach in the underground space utilization and with the diverse recog‑
nized forms reveal that this is possible.
An additional contribution of the this research is reflected by the methodology of de‑
veloping the criteria for the groundscape resilience concept in terms of perceiving under‑
ground space as an integral part of the main public city layer; its unlimited utilization
through its multifunctional role, and in terms of contributing to resilience planning and in
achieving urban resilience through groundscape integration.
Future planning strategies should address the set criteria for underground use and
development and combine the knowledge from the past with the use of advanced tech‑
nology. The application and extension of the set criteria will lead to an interdisciplinary
approach in the research and design of underground development and broaden the con‑
cept of groundscape resilience.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.O. and B.B.O.Š.; methodology, N.O., B.B.O.Š. and T.Z.;
validation, N.O., B.B.O.Š. and T.Z.; formal analysis, N.O. and T.Z.; investigation, N.O., B.B.O.Š. and
T.Z.; resources, N.O., B.B.O.Š. and T.Z.; data curation, N.O., B.B.O.Š. and T.Z.; writing—original
draft preparation, N.O.; writing—review and editing, N.O., B.B.O.Š. and T.Z.; visualization, N.O.
and T.Z.; supervision, B.B.O.Š.; project administration, B.B.O.Š.; funding acquisition, B.B.O.Š. and
T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 22 of 25

Funding: Institutional research: ‘Urbanscape Emanation’, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architec‑

ture (IP‑2023, led by prof.dr.sc. Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci and dr.sc. Tamara Zaninović).
Data Availability Statement: Directly contact authors for any questions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A
Case Project Title, Author(s), Year Built, Location, City,
Photo Source/Reference Authorship
No. Country
Underground Parking Katwijk an Zee, Royal https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:
Published on 14 October 2017
1. Haskoning DHV, 2016, Coastline of Katwijk, The Kustwerk_Katwijk_aan_zee‑17.jpg
Author: Marianne Cornelissen‑Kuyt
Netherlands Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel (SMART), https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Published on 13 March 2021
2. the government and the private sector corporation, SMART_Tunnel_modes.svg
Author: Cmglee
2007, City Centre of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
Channel (G‑can project), Japan Institute of Wastewater Published on 7 June 2007
3. Kasukabe2006_06_07.JPG
Engineering Technology, 2006, Saitama Perfecture, Author: Dddeco at Japanese Wikipedia
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Tokyo, Japan
Gallery of D. Diogo de Menezes Square / Published on 7 June 2015
D. Diogo de Menezes Square/Miguel Arruda Miguel Arruda Arquitectos Associados ‑ 26 Photopgrapher: © Fernando Guerra | FG+SG,
4.
Arquitectos Associados, 2009, Cascais, Portugal (archdaily.com) with courtesy of: Miguel Arruda Arquitectos
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024 Associados
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Grande Pyramide du Louvre Complex, Ieoh Ming Pei, Cour_Napol%C3%A9on_du_Louvre_(228021 Published on 8 August 2018
5.
1989, Paris, France 559).jpg Photographer: Alessio Mercuri
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:
Amdavad ni Gufa, MF Hussain and BV Doshi, 1994, Published on 4 January 2012
6. Amdavad_ni_gufa.jpg
Ahmedabad, India Author: Vaishal Dalal
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Rynek Underground Museum, Andrzej Kadłuczk and, Published on 21 October 2022
7. Rynek_Fountain.jpg
Dominik Przygodzki, 2010, Krakow, Poland Author: Ivan Ruggiero
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Serpentine Gallery 2012 London,
Serpentine_Gallery_Pavilion_2012_‑ Published on 1 June 2012
8. Herzog & de Meuron and Ai Weiwei,
_geograph.org.uk_‑_2974055.jpg Author: David Hawgood
2012, London, United Kingdom
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
House of Music, Sou Fujimoto, 2014, City Park, Published on 30 January 2022
9. House_of_Hungarian_Music.jpg
Budapest, Hungary Author: Elekes Andor
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Tirpitz Bunker, BIG, 2017, Sand dune, Blåvand, Published on 30 October 2013
10. Tirpitz‑Stellung_(10583800164).jpg
Denmark Author: Dirk Vorderstraße
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Amos Rex Museum, Lasipalatsi_‑_Amos_Rex_20180821_152632. Published on 21 August 2018
11.
JKMM Architects, 2018, Plaza, Helsinki, Finland jpg Author: Sino Yu
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/
Datong Art Museum, Foster + Partners, 2021, Datong, Created on 5 June 2022
12. datong‑art‑museum
Shanxi Province, People’s Republic of China Owner: Katy Harris/Foster + Partners
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
National September 11 Memorial Museum, Davis 9‑11_Memorial_and_Museum_(2881527606 Published on 19 August 2016
13.
Brody Bond, 2014, New York, United States 4).jpg Author: Paul Sableman
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Published on unknown date
UCCA Dune Art Museum, OPEN Architecture, 2018, https://www.openarch.com/en/task/334 Photographer: ©Wu Qingshan with courtesy
14.
Coastal landscape, Qinhuangdao, China Last Accessed on 18 July 2024 of: UCCA Dune Art Museum, OPEN
Architecture
https://mymodernmet.com/underground‑
Library in the Earth, Hiroshi Nakamura & NAP, 2022, Published on 30 December 2023)
15. library‑kurkku‑fields/
Kurkku Fields, Kisarazu, Japan Photographer: © Kohei Omachi
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Fangsuo Book Store, Chu Chih‑Kang, 2015, Chengdu, 方所成都店阁楼架空步道望向一楼.jpg Published on 6 June 2018
16.
China Last Accessed on 18 July 2024 Author: 来斤小仓鼠吧
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 23 of 25

Case Project Title, Author(s), Year Built, Location, City,

Photo Source/Reference Authorship
No. Country
Temppeliaukio Church, Timo and Tuomo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Published on 31 July 2014
17. Suomalainen, 1961–1969, Töölö neighbourhood Temppeliaukio_Church_Helsinki_05.jpg
Author: GualdimG
Finland, Helsinki Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Published on 14 March 2023
https://nrao.cl/fundacion‑nacional‑de‑
ALMA Sports Hall, Benjamín Murúa Arquitectos, Photographer: © C. Padilla / AUI NRAO
18. ciencia‑inaugura‑multicancha‑en‑el‑osf/
2023, Atacama Desert, ALMA Observatory, Chile Chile with courtesy of: AUI/NRAO Todos los
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
Derechos Reservados
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Gammel Hellerup Sports Hall, BIG, 2013, Gymnasium Published on 9 September 2015
19. Gammel_Hellerup_Gymnasium_1.JPG
Courtyard, Hellerup, Denmark Author: Ramblersen
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Pionen—White Mountain, Albert France‑Lanord Published on unknown date
20. 5_Pionen_Data_Centre.tif
Architects, 2008, Vita Berg Park, Stockholm, Sweden Author: Simon Klose
Last Accessed on 18 July 2024

References
1. Pace, G. An Introduction to Underground4value. In Underground Built Heritage Valorisation; Pace, G., Salvarani, R., Eds.; CNR
Edizioni: Rome, Italy, 2021; pp. 1–18.
2. Conti, L.; Easton, M.; Saldais, M.; Smith, R.; Dumovic, V. Oxford Big Ideas Humanities and Social Sciences 8; Oxford University
Press: Victoria, Australia, 2016; pp. 41–55.
3. Varriale, R. Underground Built Heritage: A Theoretical Approach for the Definition of an International Class. Heritage 2021, 4,
1092–1118. [CrossRef]
4. UNESCO. Records of the General Conference, 31st Session, Paris, 15 October to 3 November 2001, v. 1: Resolutions. Available
online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000124687.page=56 (accessed on 28 July 2023).
5. Toikilik, T.E. Underwater Cultural Heritage Act. Master’s Thesis, International Maritime Law Institute, Msida, Malta, 2019.
Available online: https://imli.org/wp‑content/uploads/2021/04/TINMETT‑ELIZABETH‑TOIKILIK‑.pdf (accessed on 23 Novem‑
ber 2023).
6. Usama, N.; Talib, S.; Alim, S.A.; Shezad, S.M. Comparative Analysis of Underground & Underwater Tunnel. Int. J. Eng. Res.
Technol. 2020, 9, 325–333. [CrossRef]
7. Jasinska, K. Underground as an integral part of the contemporary city: Functional, spatial and visual aspects. Technical. Issues
2016, 1, 37–43.
8. Admiraal, H.; Narang Suri, S. Think Deep: Planning, Development and Use of Underground Space in Cities; International Society
of City and Regional Planners and International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association, (ISOCARP): The Hague, The
Netherlands, 2015.
9. Wheeler, J. Gislebertus d’Autun and the Narrative of Scripture. Aletheia 2018, 3, 3–8. [CrossRef]
10. Lee, E.H.; Christopoulos, G.I.; Kwok, K.N.; Roberts, A.C.; Soh, C.K. A Psychosocial Approach to Understanding Underground
Spaces. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 452. [CrossRef]
11. Fira de Barcelona. The City Designed by Leonardo da Vinci that Was Centuries ahead of Its Time. Available online: https:
//tomorrow.city/a/the‑city‑designed‑by‑leonardo‑da‑vinci‑that‑was‑centuries‑ahead‑of‑its‑time (accessed on 25 July 2023).
12. The Hundertwasser Non‑Profit Foundation. The Green Motorway—The Invisible—The Inaudible. Available online: https://
hundertwasser.com/en/architecture/arch25v_die_gruene_autobahn_die_unsichtbare_die_unhoerbare_1065 (accessed on 25 July
2023).
13. Kollarath, M.R.; Raina, S.; Madapur, B. Underground Cities: Sustainable Urbanism of the Future. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng.
2019, 8, 1754–1758. [CrossRef]
14. Perrault, D. Groundscapes—Other Topographies. In Dominique Perrault; Editions HYX: Orléans, France, 2016.
15. Dominique Perrault Architecture. Open Online Course about the Groundscape Architecture. Available online: https://www.
perraultarchitecture.com/en/media/training/3585‑open_online_course_about_the_groundscape_architecture.html (accessed on
25 May 2024).
16. McMillen, H.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S.; Reynolds, R. Recognizing Stewardship Practices as Indicators of Social Resilience:
In Living Memorials and in a Community Garden. Sustainability 2016, 8, 775. [CrossRef]
17. Jha, A.K.; Miner, T.W.; Stanton‑Geddes, Z. Building Urban Resilience: Principles, Tools, and Practice; World Bank Publications:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
18. Elewa, A.K.A. Flexible Public Spaces through Spatial Urban Interventions, Towards Resilient Cities. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019,
8, 152–168. [CrossRef]
19. Leroy, J.; Amdal, J.; Vuillet, M.; Cariolet, J.M.; Diab, Y.; Becue, Y. Vulnerability and social resilience: Comparison of two neigh‑
borhoods in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. E3S Web Conf. 2016, 7, 08002. [CrossRef]
20. Pimm, S.L. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 1984, 307, 321–326. [CrossRef]
21. UNISDR. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2009. Available online: https://www.undrr.org/publications
(accessed on 28 July 2023).
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 24 of 25

22. UNDRR. Heritage and Resilience. Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks. 2013. Available online: https://whc.
unesco.org/en/events/1048/ (accessed on 28 July 2023).
23. Omićević, N.; Bojanić, O.; Šćitaroci, B. The Urban Rehabilitation of Post‑Disaster Scapes; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023. [Cross‑
Ref]
24. Diamond, R.S.; Kassel, B.G. A History of the Urban Underground Tunnel (4000 B.C.E.–1900 C.E.). J. Transp. Technol. 2018, 8,
11–43. [CrossRef]
25. Volchko, Y.; Norrman, J.; Ericsson, L.O.; Nilsson, K.L.; Markstedt, A.; Öberg, M.; Mossmark, F.; Bobylev, N.; Tengborg, P.
Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource. Land Use Policy 2020,
90, 1–18. [CrossRef]
26. Sterling, R.; Neslon, P. City Resiliency and Underground Space Use. In Advances in Underground Space Development; Zhou, Y.,
Cai, J., Sterling, R., Eds.; Research Publishing: Singapore, 2013; pp. 43–55. [CrossRef]
27. Ruby, A.; Ruby, I. Groundscapes: The Re‑Discovery of the Ground in Contemporary Architecture; Land&Scape Series; Gustavo Gili:
Barcelona, Spain, 2006.
28. De Feo, G.; Antoniou, G.; Fardin, H.T.; El‑Gohary, F.; Zheng, X.Y.; Reklaityte, I.; Butler, D.; Yannopoulos, S.; Angelakis, A.N. The
Historical Development of Sewers Worldwide. Sustainability 2014, 6, 3936–3974. [CrossRef]
29. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Old Croton Aqueduct Walk. Available online: https://www.nyc.gov/
assets/lpc/downloads/pdf/proposed_landmarks/Old_Croton_Aqueduct_Walk_proposed.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2024).
30. Vaeceslav, M. Post‑Pandemic City: Historical Context for New Urban Design. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. Spec. Issue 2020, 16,
94–108. [CrossRef]
31. Bartak, J. The Oldest Underground Railways in the World and their Anniversaries. Acta Polytech. CTU Proc. 2020, 29, 1–5.
[CrossRef]
32. Dennis, R. Lighting the Underground: London, 1863–1914. Hist. Urbaine 2017, 50, 29–48. [CrossRef]
33. Yamac, A. Some Interesting Underground Cities and Peculiar Underground Structures of Kayseri (Turkey). In Jerusalem Journal
of Archaeology; Shivtiel, Y., Ed.; The Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, Israel, 2022; Volume
3, pp. 70–107. [CrossRef]
34. Bixio, R.; Yamac, A. Underground Shelter in Cappadocia (Turkey). In Proceedings of the Hypogea 2023, the VI International
Congres of Speology in Artificial Cavities, Genoa, Italy, 29 September–1 October 2023; pp. 153–160.
35. Yildiz, P. Analysis of the ‘Cappadocian cave house’ in Turkey as the historical aspect of the usage of nature as a basis of design.
WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 87, 61–70. [CrossRef]
36. Nyvelt, V.; Musilek, J.; Čejka, J.; Stopka, O. The Study of Derinkuyu Underground City in Cappadocia Located in Pyroclastic
Rock Materials. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 2253–2258. [CrossRef]
37. Saher, K.; Mihci, G. Auditory Exploration of Derinkuyu Underground City Cappadocia Turkey. In Proceedings of the Second
Edition of the Invisible Places International Symposium, Sound, Urbanism and Sense of Place, Sao Miguel Island, Azores, Por‑
tugal, 7–9 April 2017; pp. 396–403.
38. Kimic, K.; Costa, C.S.; Negulesa, M. Creating Tourism Destinations of Underground Built Heritage—The Cases of Salt Mines in
Poland, Portugal, and Romania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9676. [CrossRef]
39. Stach, E.; Pawlowska, A.; Matoga, L. The Development of Tourism at Military‑Historical Structures and Sites—A Case Study of
the Building Complexes of Project Riese in the Owl Mountains. Pol. J. Sport Tour. 2014, 21, 36–41. [CrossRef]
40. Pasierb, B.; Nawrocki, W. Not only the ‘Gold Train’ –the ‘Underground Town’ of Riese (Poland)—the ambiguity of interpretation
ERT and GPR methods. Archaeol. Prospect. 2020, 27, 361–375. [CrossRef]
41. Jablonski, M.; Lipecki, T.; Jaskowski, W.; Ochalek, A. Virtual Underground City Osówka. Geol. Geophys. Environ. 2016, 42, 77–78.
[CrossRef]
42. Duffaut, P. Underground City‑Planning: A French Born Concept for Sustainable Cities of Tomorrow. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on: Utilization of Underground Space in Urban Areas, Sharm El‑Sheikh, Egypt, 6–7 November 2006;
Available online: https://tunnel.ita‑aites.org/media/k2/attachments/public/underground_city_planning.pdf (accessed on 18 July
2024).
43. Besner, J. Cities Think Underground—Underground Space (also) for people. Procedia Eng. 2017, 209, 49–55. [CrossRef]
44. Qing, L.H.; Aurele, P.; Philippe, T.; Zhao, L.X. An Integrated Planning Concept for the Emerging Underground Urbanism: Deep
City Method Part 1 Concept, process and application. Tunelling Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 38, 559–568. [CrossRef]
45. Enright, T. The Making of Grand Paris: Metropolitan Urbanism in the Twenty‑First Century (Urban and Industrial Environments); MIT
Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016.
46. Rethinking the Future, 2022. Louvre Pyramid by I.M, Pei: The Glass Pyramid. Available online: https://www.re‑thinkingthefuture.
com/case‑studies/a2527‑louvre‑pyramid‑by‑i‑m‑pei‑the‑glass‑pyramid/#google_vignette (accessed on 27 May 2024).
47. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Underground Developments a Benchmarking Study to Explore International Best Practices
in Underground Space Management. Available online: https://www.ura.gov.sg/‑/media/Corporate/Get‑Involved/Plan‑Our‑
Future‑SG/Underground‑Works/Benchmarking_Study.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2023).
48. Montazerolhodjah, M.; Pourjafar, M.; Taghvaee, A. Urban underground development; an overview of historical underground
cities in Iran. Int. J. Archit. Eng. Urban Plan. 2015, 25, 53–60.
Buildings 2024, 14, 2406 25 of 25

49. Dezeen. Dune‑Shaped Car Park by Royal HaskoningDHV Doubles as a Flood Defence. Available online: https://www.dezeen.
com/2016/07/05/underground‑car‑park‑royal‑haskoningdhv‑parking‑amersfoort‑south‑holland/ (accessed on 28 July 2023).
50. Isah, N.; Ali, M.B. A relationship between Flood Occurrences and the Maintenance Works of SMART Tunnel, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. Int. J. Res. Rev. 2015, 2, 434–449.
51. Bloomberg, L.P. Climate Change Will Test Tokyo’s World‑Class Flood Defenses. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/features/2023‑11‑13/ambitious‑tokyo‑flood‑tunnels‑tested‑by‑worsening‑natural‑disasters (accessed on 28 Novem‑
ber 2023).
52. Besner, J. Underground space needs an interdisciplinary approach. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 55, 224–228. [CrossRef]
53. Zaninović, T.; Omićević, N.; Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci, B. (De)Linking with the Past through Memorials. Architecture 2023,
3, 627–657. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au‑
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.