> I don't know how architecturally viable this
> would be, but why not build skyscrapers in the
> opposite direction? In other words, build deep
> into the earth instead of up into the sky. There
> would certainly be less vulnerabilty to a
> building that was surrounded by solid bedrock
> on all four sides.
>
> I suppose it would probably take much longer
> to build one of these "reverse skyscrapers."
> (Hmmm... what would you call such a
> building? An "earthscraper," maybe?) And you
> wouldn't have the breathtaking view that
> someone at the top of the Twin Towers had.
> Claustrophobic people would probably refuse
> to work there. Still, mightn't the benefits
> outweigh the negatives?
>
> Gri"a society of tunnel rats"shny

Sounds like a book I read by Isaac Asimov once which had everyone living in humongous cities underground. They were all agoraphobic. It was interesting. The first part of the book was actually about a crime that they deemed impossible because someone would have had to actually go outside to commit it, and no one would do that :). I think it sounds like a good idea myself, but Asimov seemed really against it for some reason...

Mel"I like buildings with two floors or less and above ground, but I suppose that is not space efficient..."anie