View metadata, citation and similar papers at [Link].

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Infoscience - École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne

An Integrated Planning Concept for the Emerging Underground Urbanism: Deep City Method
Part 1 Concept, process and application

Author affiliations:

Mrs. Li Huan-Qing
(Corresponding author)
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL)
Doctoral Assistant of Research group on the Economics and Management of the Environment (REME)
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Phone: +41 (0)21 693 9398

Prof. Dr. Parriaux Aurèle

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL)
Director of Engineering and Environmental Geology Laboratory (GEOLEP)
[Link]@[Link]

Prof. Dr. Thalmann Philippe

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL)
Director of Research group on the Economics and Management of the Environment (REME)
[Link]@[Link]

Prof. Dr. Li Xiao-Zhao

Nanjing University
Director of Institute for Underground Space and Geoenvironment (IUSG)
lixz@[Link]

Abstract:

Four underground resources have been seen as having a long-term potential to support sustainable
urban development: underground space, groundwater, geomaterials and geothermal energy.
Utilization of these resources proposes a new paradigm of economic development: underground
urbanism. The new management approach named “Deep City Method” is put forward to aid decision-
makers to integrate global potential of the urban underground into city-scale strategic planning. The
research output will be presented in form of two papers each with a different focus. Part 1 aims to
introduce the concept, process and initial application in Switzerland; Part 2 is devoted to show
methodological insight for a new zoning policy in China and investment scenarios for project cost
viability.

This Part 1 paper will begin by presenting the fundamental concept of the Deep City Method, followed
by a proposition for a trans-institutional planning process. The application is firstly based on a rating
system to identify cities having a potential for underground development. The city of Geneva is
selected for conceptual application and strategic level study. Further operational steps are required in
order to generalize the concept to other cities around the world.

Keywords:
Underground urbanism, Deep City Method, Integrated Planning, Management process, Geneva city

Acknowledgement:
The work presented in this paper is supported by the Sino Swiss Science and Technology
Cooperation (SSSTC: IZLCZ2123929) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41272314).

1
1. Context of the emerging underground urbanism and purpose of the research

In 2007, the urban population around the world surpassed 50% of total habitants, among which nearly
1
20% live in metropolitan areas (urban areas with more than one million people) .This emerging trend
of rapid urbanization and concentration requires smarter solutions for adapting to growing needs of
living space, construction land, water access, energy production and material provision. While decision
makers are facing challenges to seek additional resources to meet urban demand, some emerging
resources are becoming more and more attractive.

Land, as the main production factor of cities, is limited, nonrenewable and scarce. Cities are
transforming from agricultural traders to industrial manufacturers to service providers. Their land use
planning agenda is changing from industrial land oriented planning to commercial land oriented
planning to residential land oriented planning, even to mixed use planning (Kivell 1993; O'Sullivan
2009). In a context of sustainable urban development, innovative spatial planning attempts to
maximize land use value by mixing urban activities, linking urban mobilities, and compacting the urban
fabric. While more space is needed but more land leasing is frozen, space hunting is going to a three-
dimensional trend. Density generates space, but over-densification is always restricted by planning
regulations. Another dimension is being stated by civil engineers, claiming that by going underground
we can acquire more possibilities for construction. Emerging uses became attractive such as subway
tunnels, road tunnels, buried utility lines, subterranean parking, deep storage, pedestrian pass, and
large basement buildings (Magnus Bergman 1986). Technological advancement makes these uses
even more competitive (Goel, Singh et al. 2012), because going underground can mitigate surface
constraints on land acquisition, from building height limits and from landscape control (Carmody and
Sterling 1993; Golany and Ojima 1996). Relocating space volume underground helps to equilibrate
densification and revitalization. This is the first resource being used to shape underground urbanism:
underground space.

Water, is another critical production factor for agriculture, industry and urbanization. The use of
groundwater exceeds 70% of the total water consumption in most European countries, especially for
domestic drinking water use (Zektser and Everett 2004). In the post-industrial era, quality of life
dominates our residential location choice. An abundant source of drinking water has a competitive
advantage for sustaining urban growth. This is the second resource offered by underground urbanism:
groundwater.

Energy provisioning is a challenge to modern societies. Transport and building count for more than
half of the total energy demand, which is being intensified by rapid urbanization. Energy efficiency can
be gained from technological innovation in transport systems and building structures. A subway, as a
transport system of high efficiency, speeds up urban mobility and shortens travel time. The building
sector is also undergoing continuous progress to save energy use. The ground source heat pump
(GSHP) market is expanding around the world (Navigant Consulting 2009; IEA 2010), making this
hidden resource the third element in underground urbanism: geothermal energy (Parriaux, Tacher et al.
2004).

Availability of materials is one of the main factors influencing construction industry, a mainstay sector
in the urban economy. As mining areas become limited, provision of material is becoming more
difficult. A recyclable material source from construction excavation sites could relieve material
provision deficiency (Rochat, Erkman et al. 2006). Excavation provides raw materials that may be able
to aid in meeting higher demand. This is the fourth emerging resource: geomaterial.

This article will present an appraisal system of these four underground resources (Figure 1) as a
starting point for investigating a deeper dimension of urban sustainability. Underground Urbanism can
be defined as an innovative concept for urban restructuring and transformational construction practice
(Utudjian 1972; Barles and Guillerme 1995; Bélanger 2007), aiming to increase mixed uses in urban
centers by relocating space underground in order to release surface land, while safeguarding valuable
groundwater, geothermal energy and geomaterial resources. This new concept is named “Deep City
method” (Figure 1), an interdisciplinary project based in Switzerland since 2009 (Parriaux, Blunier et al.
2010).

1
[Link]/indicator/[Link]
2
 Figure 1 Deep City Method: a holistic management concept for underground resources

After a holistic investigation of supply capacity of these four emerging resources, the main research
contribution of the study will be founded on economic and institutional feasibility of underground space
development, proving that the underground will become a strategic resource for urban growth. An
integrated management process is created for strategic thinking and operational planning practices,
combining understandings on supply and demand schemes of underground resources. A new
economic index is introduced (in the Part 2 paper) in order to comprehensively assess underground
projects, taking into account divergences of land quality, project scope, land price and building
configuration.

Section 2 will present the integrated planning process, followed by the first–step critical success factor
framing in Section 3. Two groups of cities are evaluated in Section 4 to select applicable cities, which
are further studied through remaining steps based on the integrated management process.

2. Methodology: trans-institutional planning process for underground urbanism

Current development of underground space in cities is facing coordination dilemmas: on one side,
public infrastructures are growing fast and going deep, congestion and disorder hinder future
development (Sterling 2005; Sterling, Admiraal et al. 2010); on the other side, private developers are
playing a major role in property development but lack of cognition of subsurface potential and
comprehensive decision-making.

The 6-step process proposed below (Figure 2) is a facilitating procedure to frame a comprehensive
decision platform, linking public and private sectors into new subsurface urbanism plans. It is also a
value chain of underground development by linking multi-disciplinary capitals to create long-term
growth, aiming to meet urban demand while optimize the use of underground space in the city.

Table 1 points out new responsibilities to the related municipal institutions and actors in this facilitating
process:

3
 Table 1 Institutional capacity building proposition

Economic planning institution

Strategic level Step 1: Accumulate critical success factors from best practices around
the world, select critical success factors of sustainable
underground development for urban economy.
Land use institution
Operational level Step 2: Collect local urban data for problem diagnostic in underground
exploitation, study feasible solutions.
Urban planning institution
Operational level Step 3: Map the city with different levels of potential, based on
comprehensive but simple indicators for public use.
Urban construction institution
Operational level Step 4: Assess project typologies, introduce new economic indicators
for project evaluation.
Real estate promoters and infrastructure builders
Operational level Step 5: Lever the scenarios based on potential indicators and economic
indicators, to guide project implementation.
Legislative institution
Strategic level Step 6: Propose new institutional tools or legal instruments to improve
public management process.

This new strategic and operational process dedicated to urban underground development, is based on
the classical theory of rational model for policy implementation (Patton and Sawicki 1993). The
continuous improvement loop showed in Figure 2 helps to develop a long-term vision and planning
methodology for sustainable subsurface use in urban centers. Implication for innovative underground
management is an “integrated planning” linking multiple spatial scales (international, national,
municipal, local, parcel), linking multiple institutional levels (political, strategic, scientific, economic,
private) and linking specific analytic methods to the whole framework. This paper will focus on
strategic level study while another paper (Part 2) will focus on operational level study.

Figure 1 Integrated planning process of Deep City Method (by the authors)

4
 3. Strategic benchmarking: Critical success factors for urban underground governance

Intensification in metropolitan areas is one of the driving forces for underground space use in forms of
infrastructures and buildings. The authors have investigated five leading cities (Montreal, Helsinki,
Tokyo, Paris, Amsterdam) on policy implementation of underground space planning, relating to their
major development plans, policy streams and milestones, representative large underground projects,
capacity building within institutions, and specific planning instruments (Table 2) (Li, Parriaux et al.
2012).

Table 2 Catalogue of successful policy references in underground space development

Strategic Milestones in Policy Capacity building with Instruments and

City

plans History Collaboration bodies Methods

AMFORA  1998 policy initiation for  COB (Netherlands  Layered land planning
Amsterdam

(Alternative assessing “underground Knowledge Center for and Area-scale mapping

Multifunctional development” Underground Space and  Multi-criteria decision
Underground possibility(Monnikhof, Construction) making
Space Edelenbos et al. 1998)  TUD (Delft University of process(Monnikhof and
Amsterdam)  1999 policy application on Technology) Bots 2000)
(Rein 2009) Great Randstad spatial  RPD (National Physical  Economic valuation for
planning Planning Service) resources(Weytingh and
revision(Monnikhof,  Ministry of Housing, Roovers 2007)
Edelenbos et al. 1999) Spatial Planning and
 2008 mainstream into Environment(Edelenbos,
Amsterdam Action Plan Monnikhof et al. 1998)
Healthy City
Indoor City  1960s conception and  OVI (L’Observatoire de la  Public-private
Montreal

Master plan initiation Ville Intérieure) partnership(Boisvert

(Boisvert  1970s network expansion  University of Montreal 2007)
2004) (RESO)  City Council of Montreal  Land use rights and
 1980s maturity with  Association of owners incentives(Besner 2007)
functions (commerce, (ARQIM)  Layered planning and
mobility, institution, office,  CNR (Canadian National inventory
culture)(El-Geneidy, Railway) (Boivin 1989; Boivin 1990)
Kastelberger et al. 2011)  STM (Société de
 1992 adoption of Master Transport)(Besner 1997)
Plan
 2002 revision of Master
Plan
Deep Space  1955 construction of large  USJ (Urban Underground  Legalization of deep
Tokyo

Utilization Law volumes of underground Space center of Japan) space (-40m public
(Nishioka, shopping arcades  JTA(Japan Tunneling domain)
Tannaka et al.  1965 “Golden age” Association)  Planning method for
2007)  1980 regulation restriction  Investigation Committee zoning(Barles and Jardel
 1988 promotion of for Deep Underground 2005)
effective land use with Space use  Numbers of building
subsurface  (MITI) Ministry of investigations and social
 2000 new legal International Trade and surveys
system(Japan Tunnelling, Industry(Tetsuya 1990) (Nishi, Kamo et al. 1990;
Takasaki et al. 2000)  Urban Development Nishida and Uchiyama
Department 1993; Nishida, Fabillah et
 National Land Policy al. 2007; Okuyama 2007)
Institute

5
 Underground  1955 database building  Helsinki City Real Estate  Detail mapping of
Helsinki

Master Plan (Real Estate Department Department existing & planned

(VÄHÄAHO and Geotechnical Division  Geotechnical division facilities and potential
2009) 2005)  Ministry of Environment geo-space(Chow, Paul
 1996 initiation of feasibility  Land use department et al. 2002; Paul, Chow
study for underground  Ministry of Agriculture and et al. 2002)
space(Rönkä, Ritola et al. Forestry (3D cadaster)  Public acquisition of land
1998)  Legalization of
 2006 working group on underground (rock)
3D property cadastral space utilization
system
 2009 adoption of rock
space Master Plan

Development  1972 initiation study for  Underground Space  Economic valuation for
Paris

Program (Ville underground Committee (AFTES- subsurface use

10D) urbanism(Utudjian 1972) COMES) right(Barles 2000)
(Labbé 2011)  1995 feasibility research  Regional Economic and  Integration with existing
for underground Social Council planning
urbanism(Barles and  Ministry of Ecology, instruments(Barles
Guillerme 1995) Energy and Sustainable 1999)
 2006 policy initiation for Development  Sustainability indicators
sustainable subsurface  IREX (Institut de la (M. Deffayet and d’Aloïa-
use Recherche appliquée et Schwartzentruber 2011)
 2010 action plan of “Ville l’Expérimentation en génie
10D” civil)

Critical success factors of their underground urbanisms can be concluded as seven aspects: (Table 3)

Table 3 General critical success factors (CSF) of underground governance

CSF 1 CSF 2 CSF 3 CSF 4 CSF 5 CSF 6 CSF 7

Strategic Information Functional Knowledge Private Economic Social
Thinking Building Reinforcement Cluster Involvement Feasibility Acceptance
Identification Interpretation Transformation Assemblage Creation of Disclosure of Securing
of priority of resources of land to of expertise& joint value overall public
urban zones to potential space system technologies chain benefits welfare

Scaling Informing Converging Progressing Associating Reasoning Adapting

These five cities with respective characteristics in the routes to manage underground urbanization are
selected as experience learning for worldwide underground space development. Their governance
models can be referred by future cities having similar contexts, to personalize processes and
strategies in the establishment of underground urbanism policies.

4. Selection of pilot cities by “Deep City Applicability Score”

For the purpose of this joint research between Switzerland and China, numbers of candidate pilot
cities in the two countries are examined with general criteria of geography, geology and population.
Finally four representative cities in each country are selected according to their significant population
size and diversity of geo-resources. The comparison by rating in this section serves to identify a
particular city which deserves an imminent management of the urban underground.

The economic importance of underground resources is determined by combining the value of

resources and the macro-economy, which in turn aids in defining the applicability of underground
urbanism for a particular city. The “Deep City Applicability Score” is the potentiality of the urban
underground to provide reliable building space, good-quality drinking water, safe geothermal energy
and usable construction material, in response to urbanization demand. It is supposed that, the level of
potentiality can reveal to decision-makers the urgency of the city to manage its underground resources.
Table 4 shows the criteria structure used in developing the score. Capacity of resources (A1)
addresses the global potential of natural underground resources by qualifying geological
characteristics. The macroeconomic context (A2) determines the quantitative demand scheme of

6
using these resources along with urbanization, which induces increasing need in living space, water,
energy and material supply.

Distribution of importance to the three level criteria is formulated by following arguments:

 First level criteria: supply and demand (A)

We considered equal importance between geo-resources’ supply capacity and urban demand in
macro-economic growth, meaning urban underground’s sustainability can’t be achieved by
overexploiting available geo-resources.

 Second level criteria: supply potentials and demand driving forces (B)

According to (Dobbs, Oppenheim et al. 2011), emerging opportunities in land, energy, water and
material should be captured to support rapid urbanization by expanding alternative supply source and
increasing resource productivity. At the developing stage of the urban underground, opportunities and
potentials of exploiting these four subsurface resources define a supply capacity of underground
urbanism. This is the reason of choosing sub-criteria from 1.1 to 1.4, representing potential types for
underground resource supply.

Among the four criteria of supply, groundwater especially for drinking use is considered as the most
concerned sub-criteria for the supply criteria, due to the increasing deficiency of drinking water supply
in urban areas (Zektser and Everett 2004). Since location of protected aquifer is considered as a
spatial expansion limit for subsurface construction and geothermal drilling in the Swiss environmental
regulations, subsurface construction potential zoning has to be compatible with aquifer protection
zoning.

Urban population and living density as driving forces for underground development has been
recognized by (Golany and Ojima 1996; Bobylev 2009). An empirical study showed both population
density and Per capita GDP have positive correlations to the future demand of underground space (He,
Song et al. 2012). Therefore, three driving forces are included into demand sub-criteria from 2.1 to 2.3.
Densification demand is weighted as the most important sub-criteria for demand side.

 Third level criteria: quantitative and qualitative standard (C)

Information about the status of four resources and three driving forces was collected for cities selected
below, from municipal geological department website and economic statistics website. Quantitative
and qualitative data is treated and classified on three standards (from most preferable to least
preferable) for each sub-criteria. Classification of geological resources is based on previous research
results on geo-resource potential evaluation by Deep City team (Blunier 2009).

 Final weighting and grading for selected cities

Weights of sub-criteria are evaluated by authors based on facts mentioned above, using pairwise
comparison with Expert Choice Comparison Suite. Final score for each city is calculated as:

∑ ∑

Two groups of cities are placed in the Table 4 according to their local context. For example, the final
score for Beijing city is calculated as:

7
 Table 4 Criteria structure of Deep City applicability score and attributed weights

A Bi C China Switzerland
A1. Capacity of 1.1 Subsurface - favorable condition (0.69) Beijing, Suzhou Bern, Lausanne
resources – geotechnical
criteria of quality - unfavorable condition (0.23) Shanghai Zurich, Geneva
supply (0.30)
(0.50) - presence of special risks (0.08) Nanjing

1.2 Groundwater - drinking water aquifer (0.80) Beijing, Nanjing, Zurich, Geneva
quality and Suzhou
quantity - low quality aquifer (0.12) Shanghai Bern
(0.45)
- no aquifer under city (0.08) Lausanne

1.3 Geothermal - high quality reserve (0.70) Shanghai Bern, Lausanne

energy quality
(0.15) - conditional exploitation (0.21) Beijing, Nanjing, Zurich, Geneva
Suzhou
- restricted exploitation (0.09)
Applicability criteria

1.4 Geomaterial - valuable mines (0.68) Shanghai, Suzhou Bern, Lausanne

quality
(0.10) - reusable material (0.25) Beijing, Nanjing Zurich, Geneva

- material needed treatment (0.07)

A2. 2.1 Urban - over 5 million (0.64) Beijing, Shanghai,

Macroeconomic population Nanjing
context – (0.22) - between 1 and 5 million (0.27) Suzhou Zurich
criteria of
demand - below 1 million (0.09) Geneva, Bern,
(0.50) Lausanne
2
2.2 Living density - over 5000 per/km (0.65) Beijing, Shanghai, Geneva
(0.41) Nanjing, Suzhou
2
- 2000 to 5000 per/km (0.22) Zurich, Bern,
Lausanne
2
- below 2000 per/km (0.13)

2.3 GDP per - over 50K USD (0.74) Zurich, Geneva,

capita Lausanne
(0.37) - between 20K to 50K USD (0.19) Suzhou Bern

- below 20K USD (0.07) Beijing, Shanghai,

Nanjing

According to the World Urbanization Prospects from the United Nation Population Division (2007), the
Swiss urban population will rise from 73.6% in 2010 to 83.4% in 2050, with a population growth of 1.5
million in the cities. The Chinese urban population will rise from 44.9% in 2010 to 72.9% in 2050, with
a population growth of more than 400 million in the cities. The number of Chinese megacities with a
population of more than 1 million will reach 141 in 2025, and four huge urban agglomerations will
house more than 10 million people. While Chinese cities are undergoing a critical transition to
urbanization, Swiss cities are tackling the challenge of intensification in urban agglomeration. Both
cases present contemporary urban planning challenges.

The rating method enables a first insight into cities’ urban underground diversity and current economic
development level. The final choice for applicability test can be the highest-scored cities; more
considerations can also be taken such as significance of emergence and outstanding economic
achievement. The contextual analysis of four Swiss cities is shown in Table 5 and Figure 3: Highest
scores are given to the city of Geneva, with a high degree of underground resource diversity and a
high urban development demand. The city of Geneva was chosen for further evaluation.

8
 Table 5 Rating the Deep City Applicability Scores for four Swiss cities

Criteria Zurich Geneva Bern Lausanne

1.1 subsurface geotechnical quality 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.11
1.2 groundwater quality 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.02
1.3 geothermal energy 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06
1.4 geomaterial quality 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04
2.1 urban population 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
2.2 living density 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.05
2.3 GDP per capita 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.14
Final scores 0.46 0.53 0.31 0.41

ZURICH GENEVA BERN LAUSANNE

FINAL SCORES
0.60
0.50 1.1 Subsurface
2.3 GDP per capita
0.40 geotechnical quality
0.30
0.20
0.10
2.2 Living density 0.00 1.2 Groundwater quality

2.1 Urban population 1.3 Geothermal energy

1.4 Geomaterial quality

Figure 3 Deep City Applicability Scores of Swiss large cities

The contextual analysis of four Chinese cities is shown in Table 6 and Figure 4: Beijing and Suzhou
are rated the highest applicability level, with high geo-resource capacity and a very high population
demand. In China, the city of Suzhou is the earliest prefectural level city equipped with metro system,
its distinct economic achievement (highest per capita GDP) allows us to use it as a case study city for
underground urbanism. The city of Suzhou also represents one of the new megacities coming up in
China in the near future.

Table 6 Rating the Deep City Applicability Scores for four Chinese cities

Criteria Beijing Shanghai Nanjing Suzhou

1.1 subsurface geotechnical quality 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.11
1.2 groundwater quality 0.18 0.03 0.18 0.18
1.3 geothermal energy 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02
1.4 geomaterial quality 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04
2.1 urban population 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.03
2.2 living density 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
2.3 GDP per capita 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04
Final scores 0.54 0.37 0.44 0.54

9
 BEIJING SHANGHAI NANJING SUZHOU
FINAL SCORES
0.60
0.50 1.1 Subsurface
2.3 GDP per capita
0.40 geotechnical quality
0.30
0.20
0.10
2.2 Living density 0.00 1.2 Groundwater quality

2.1 Urban population 1.3 Geothermal energy

1.4 Geomaterial quality

Figure 4 Deep City Applicability Scores of Chinese large cities

5. Conceptual application in the city of Geneva

After a four-year research program focusing on the city of Geneva (Deep City project 2005-2009)
(Blunier 2009; Parriaux, Blunier et al. 2010; Maire 2011), a general planning process for the urban
underground was formulated, based on the research outputs on geo-resources exploitation and socio-
economic evaluation. Three operational steps are performed at three urban scales:

 Urban scale: choose three districts for underground potential evaluation based on existing data
 Land parcel scale: compare construction costs of underground building with different land qualities
 Project scale: calculate underground building life-cycle costs for commercial space use

Knowledge of Deep City Method is transferred from academic level to political level, with two motions
submitted to federal department in favor of integrating underground resources management into urban
2
planning system . At the local level, a policy proposal was issued by the Cantonal office of Geneva in
3
2010 , aiming to encourage a sustainable underground urbanism to aid in urban densification and
revitalization, as well as to raise the consciousness of resources’ multiple use potential. Instruments
are to be implemented in order to target priority zones, improve general perception on the richness of
underground resources, and create a joint value chain between the public and private sectors.

While collecting the related instruments launched by the city of Geneva, a validation of the critical
success factors mentioned in Section 3 was observed in terms of adapting public instruments to the
sustainable use of urban subsurface. Components of this policy instrument framework, classified
according to the general critical success factors (CSF) mentioned in section 3, are as follows:

Table 7 Geneva city's Deep City policy instruments

Critical Success Factors Policy instruments Examples

(strategic step 1) (strategic step 6)
1. Strategic thinking Integrate underground solutions PAV renewal project enables
(CSF1 Scaling) into “Major Project Area” schemes an opportunity of forward
thinking to use subsurface

2. Information building Enrich geo-resources database Open source: GeoAgglo, a

(CSF2 Informing) and create mixed land use mapping application with open
planning tool database

2
The Swiss Parliament: Motion 09.4291 [Link] and Motion 09.4067
[Link]
3
[Link]
10
 3. Functional convergence Promote underground Subway tunnel CEVA,
(CSF3 Converging) infrastructure projects to revitalize parking, museum, geothermal
urban surface energy system, utility lines

4. Knowledge cluster Assemble academic research and Joint research, Seminars,

(CSF4 Progressing) professional practice public consultations, Websites
ge
5. Private involvement Mobilize enterprises to join ECOMAT program
(CSF5 Associating) initiative public private partnership (partnership for material
valorization)

6. Economic feasibility Bring together economists, jurists, Life cycle cost model of an
disclosure civil engineers, energy engineers underground commercial
(CSF6 Reasoning) and architects into project center
appraisal

7. Adaptation to social Improve architectural quality of Atrium-style underground

acceptance subterranean space, release station design for CEVA
(CSF7 Adapting) public green space on the surface subway

The proposed instruments in the Canton of Geneva are being examined at the federal level, where a
territorial planning law revision project is taking place and serves as an ideal opportunity of formulating
comprehensive three-dimensional land use planning regulations. The dense central area of Geneva
2 2
city (15.89 km surface area with density of 12,081 habitants per km ) is looking for multilayer
solutions for transport and parking infrastructures, commercial and cultural services. Along with urban
intensification in the agglomeration, population growth in the city generates urban sprawl into nearby
2 2
suburban zones, such as Lancy (2.7 km ) and Carouge (4.77 km ) near central Geneva. The subway
tunnel project CEVA is being built to connect these suburban districts to the center (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Subway tunnel of CEVA in Geneva city [Link]

While housing policy is on the main agenda of maintaining urban growth, the provision of related
amenities and services is essential to ensure quality of life for citizens. As the city has a high “Deep
City Applicability Score” on the potential for underground urbanism, its global potential of the four
resources is taken into account for district-level land use planning. A suitability study in three urban
zones identified land parcels with high potential for synergetic underground development (optimization
of underground construction condition, synergetic use between geothermal system and geomaterial,
conflict prevention from groundwater protection) (Blunier 2009; Piguet and Blunier 2009).
4 2
The renewal area PAV zone is one of the key study areas, covering 2.3 km and undergoing post-
industrial regeneration. High potential land parcels for multilayer underground urbanism are shown in
Figure 7:

4
PAV district: Praille-Acacias-Vernets ([Link]
11
 N

Figure 7 Underground Space Construction Capacity mapping for PAV district

(Left: Subsurface geotechnical quality,
Right: Administrative divisions of PAV district, black points are locations of CEVA stations)
5
Lower than 30 meters, a subway tunnel CEVA will be built, with two subterranean stations (black
points) serving the district. A large underground building with more than two levels below-grade should
choose good quality parcels in north-west part, with good subsurface land quality, high geothermal
energy reserve and lower impact on aquifer. It is estimated that 10% of land is suitable for shallow
underground construction (0-15m). An exploitable gravel material zone near river bank also has
potential for additional uses. Underground urbanism helps this development zone (building height limit
to 24 m) to balance urban density and landscape liberty. Possible land saving in building footprint
extension can reach 19% (Table 8), which could serve to create more public recreational spaces.

Table 8 Inventory of underground space supply (0-15m depth) in PAV district

Indicators Planning reference (PAV) Space and land (PAV)

6 2
Housing sector 9,550 housing units 764,000 m
7 2
Commercial sector 45,200 jobs 1,356,000 m
2
Built-up area 1.35 km
2 2
Green space 35% in built-up area 472,500 m (0.47 km )
2 2
Building footprint 50% in built-up area 675,000 m (0.68 km )
Densification demand Floor area ratio 3.14
Underground resources supply forecast:
1. Underground space
2
Underground space supply 10% of built-up area (3 floors) 405,000 m
Densification input Underground space rate 0.19
2 2
Building footprint release Underground space / density 128,950 m (0.13 km , 19%)
2. groundwater
3
Three groundwater wells nearby, providing about 5 million m of clean drinking water per year
3. geomaterial
a gravel material reserve zone in the area, excavated soil can be revalorized in the construction site
4. geothermal energy
Northern part of the area is identified as high potential for geothermal drilling, potential map can be
found in (Piguet, Blunier et al. 2009)

5
Rail network of Cornavin-Eaux-Vives-Annemasse ([Link] )
6
Assuming that household size is 2 persons with Swiss average level, housing space per person is 40 m 2.
7
Assuming that per employee working space is 30 m 2.
12
In order to test the robustness of our results obtained in the Swiss case study, the methodology is
further applied in the case of Suzhou city in China. The case, described in Part 2 of the paper,
2
provides a more comprehensive study conducted on a much larger urban scale (built-up area 324 km )
involving four underground layers (15m, 30m, 50m, 100m) and illustrates a quantitative forecast for
development potential.

6. Conclusion

The paper has introduced an overview of the Deep City Method and it has demonstrated an integrated
planning tool for underground urbanism. Two innovative principals for urbanization strategy have been
introduced in the paper:

1. Resource-based management:

While the use of underground space is not a recent discovery, managing underground resources as a
whole system including space, groundwater, geomaterial and geothermal energy has been ignored in
the history of urbanization, this paper provides a first demonstration of the importance of managing
four geo-resources in the developing stage of underground urbanization. By proposing an
“Applicability score”, cities are examined through a general diagnostic, which helps to qualify and
prioritize pilot cities for underground urbanism. Since data on geo-resources is usually fragmented or
sometimes missing, a sound resource management is based on a foundation of existing knowledge
and information.

2. Institution-based management:

Success models of governing underground urbanization are summarized in section 3. This

benchmarking study helped to extract critical success factors to be referred by applicable cities. An
integrated management process involved by different levels of institutions is proposed, to ensure that
international experiences on strategic thinking are transferred to city level and adapted to local
operational schemes.

To illustrate a combination of the above-mentioned principals, a conceptual case study is

demonstrated at the end. The city of Geneva is the first municipality to experience a restructuring with
underground urbanism, its performance of adapting public instruments is based on the existing
territorial information platform for knowledge sharing, as well as interactive coordination with existing
urban planning process. These two advantages are usually not evident in those emerging growing
cities.

When more cities are imminent to manage the urban underground, building a comprehensive
management model and planning process become critical for decision-makers in operational levels.
More operational steps are required for generalizing the method to other cities around the world; this is
further studied in the Part 2 paper at three scales:

 Urban scale: identify key issues of underground construction and resources exploitation by
academic research, digitize parameters into territorial information platform to aid urban planning
and classify land qualities for land administration.
 Land scale: renew land asset management based on supply capacity and demand level, by
coordinating regulatory guidelines from land administrators (legal rights of land parcel) and urban
planners (building codes of land parcel).
 Project scale: indicate investment choices according to different uses and cost efficiency levels.

13
Reference:

Barles, S. (1999). Le sol urbain, Anthropos.

Barles, S. (2000). "La Valeur du tréfonds." Etudes foncières 85: 28-32.

Barles, S. and A. Guillerme (1995). L'urbanisme souterrain, Presses universitaires de France.

Barles, S. and S. Jardel (2005). L'urbanisme souterrain : étude comparée exploratoire. UMR7136
Architecture, Urbanism, Sociétés (AUS). Paris, Atelier Parisien d'Urbansime.

Bélanger, P. (2007). "Underground landscape: The urbanism and infrastructure of Toronto’s

downtown pedestrian network." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 22(3): 272-292.

Besner, J. (1997). Genèse de la ville intérieure de Montréal. 7e Conférence internationale de l'ACUUS

"Espace souterrain, villes intérieures de demain", Montreal.

Besner, J. (2007). Develop the underground space with a Master Plan or Incentives. "Underground
Space: expanding the frontiers", 11th ACUUS International Conference, Athens, NTUA Press.

Blunier, P. (2009). Méthodologie de gestion durable des ressources du sous-sol urbain. Lausanne,
EPFL. Ph.D.

Bobylev, N. (2009). "Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city's Master plan: A case of
Urban Underground Space use." Land Use Policy 26(4): 1128-1137.

Boisvert, M. (2004). Le développement de la ville intérieure et la révision en cours du Plan

d'urbansime. Montreal, Observatoire de la ville intérieure.

Boisvert, M. (2007). Extensions of Indoor Walkways into the Public Domain - A Partnership
Experiment. 11th ACUUS Conference: “Underground Space: Expanding the Frontiers”, Athens.

Boivin, D. (1989). "De l’occupation du sous-sol urbain à l’urbanisme souterrain." Cahiers de

géographie du Québec 33.

Boivin, D. J. (1990). "Underground Space Use and Planning in the Quebec City Area." Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 5(1/2).

Carmody, J. and R. L. Sterling (1993). Underground Space Design: Part 1: Overview of Subsurface
Space Utilization Part 2: Design for People in Underground Facilities, John Wiley & Sons.

Chow, F., T. Paul, et al. (2002). Hidden Aspects of Urban Planning: Utilisation of Underground Space.
Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Soil Structure Interaction in Urban Civil Engineering,
Zürich.

Dobbs, R., J. Oppenheim, et al. (2011). Resource Revolution: Meeting the world's energy, materials,
food, and water needs. McKinsey Global Institute and McKinsey Sustainability & Resource
Productivity Practice.

Edelenbos, J., R. Monnikhof, et al. (1998). "Strategic study on the utilization of underground space in
the Netherlands." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 13(2): 159-165.

El-Geneidy, A., L. Kastelberger, et al. (2011). "Montréal’s Roots: Exploring the Growth of Montréal’s
Indoor City." Journal of Transport and Land use 4.

Goel, R. K., B. Singh, et al. (2012). Underground Infrastructures: Planning, Design, and Construction,
Elsevier Science.

14
Golany, G. and T. Ojima (1996). Geo-space urban design, John Wiley.

Golany, G. S. and T. Ojima (1996). Geo-Space Urban Design, John Wiley & Sons.

He, L., Y. Song, et al. (2012). "Quantitative research on the capacity of urban underground space –
The case of Shanghai, China." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32(0): 168-179.

IEA (2010). Annex 30 Retrofit Heat Pumps for Buildings - final report. Sweden, IEA Heat Pump Center.

Japan Tunnelling, A., H. Takasaki, et al. (2000). "Planning and mapping of subsurface space in Japan."
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 15(3): 287-301.

Kivell, P. (1993). Land and the City: Patterns and Processes of Urban Change, Routledge.

Labbé, M. (2011). National research project, different dimensions for a sustainable and desirable
urban development declined in a Dynamic “Top/Bottom”. The 13 th AFTES International Congress
"Underground Space for Tomorrow", Lyon, France.

Li, H., A. Parriaux, et al. (2012). The Way to Plan a Sustainable "Deep City": the Strategic Framework
and Economic Model. 13th ACUUS conference “Underground Space Development – Opportunities
and Challenges”. Singapore.

M. Deffayet and L. d’Aloïa-Schwartzentruber (2011). Taking into account issues related to sustainable
development in the design and operation of tunnels and underground spaces. The 13 th AFTES
International Congress "Underground Space for Tomorrow", Lyon, France.

Magnus Bergman, S. (1986). "U.N. Progess Report: The development and utilization of subsurface
space." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 1(2): 115-144.

Maire, P. (2011). Étude multidisciplinaire d'un développement durable du sous-sol urbain : aspects
socio-économiques, juridiques et de politique urbaine. Lausanne, EPFL. Ph.D.

Monnikhof, R., J. Edelenbos, et al. (1998). "How to determine the necessity for using underground
space: an integral assessment method for strategic decision-making." Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 13(2): 167-172.

Monnikhof, R. A. H. and P. W. G. Bots (2000). "On the application of MCDA in interactive spatial
planning processes: lessons learnt from two stories from the swamp." Journal of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis 9(1-3): 28-44.

Monnikhof, R. A. H., J. Edelenbos, et al. (1999). "The new underground planning map of the
Netherlands: a feasibility study of the possibilities of the use of underground space." Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 14(3): 341-347.

Navigant Consulting, I. (2009). Ground-Source Heat Pumps: Overview of Market Status, Barriers to
Adoption, and Options for Overcoming Barriers, U.S. Department of Energy.

Nishi, J., F. Kamo, et al. (1990). "Rational use of urban underground space for surface and subsurface
activities in Japan." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 5(1–2): 23-31.

Nishida, Y., H. Fabillah, et al. (2007). The Underground Images in Japan, Korea and Indonesia.
“Underground Space: Expanding the Frontiers”, 11th ACUUS Conference, Athens.

Nishida, Y. and N. Uchiyama (1993). "Japan's use of underground space in urban development and
redevelopment." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 8(1): 41-45.

15
Nishioka, S., Y. Tannaka, et al. (2007). Deep Underground Usage for Effective Executing of City Facility
Construction. 11th ACUUS Conference: “Underground Space: Expanding the Frontiers”, Athens -
Greece.

O'Sullivan, A., Ed. (2009). Urban Economics 7/e. NEWYORK, Douglas Reiner.

Okuyama, K. (2007). A Study for the Construction Method, Site Environment and it’s Usage of Newly
Built Underground Architecture in Japan. 11th ACUUS Conference: “Underground Space: Expanding
the Frontiers”, Athens - Greece.

Parriaux, A., P. Blunier, et al. (2010). Rapport de recherche PNR54: Projet Deep City – Ressources du
sous-sol et développement durable des espaces urbains.

Parriaux, A., L. Tacher, et al. (2004). "The hidden side of cities—towards three-dimensional land
planning." Energy and Buildings 36(4): 335-341.

Patton, C. V. and D. S. Sawicki (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning, Prentice Hall.

Paul, T., F. Chow, et al. (2002). Hidden aspects of urban planning: surface and underground
development, Thomas Telford.

Piguet, P. and P. Blunier (2009). Praille-Acacias-Vernets: Etudes synthétiques des constraintes liées au
sous-sol - Rapport préliminaire Deep City. Geneva, BG Ingénieurs Conseils: 26.

Piguet, P., P. Blunier, et al. (2009). A New Energy and Natural Resources Investigation Method,
Geneva case studies. 45th ISOCARP Congress 2009, Porto, Portugal.

Real Estate Department and Geotechnical Division (2005). "Deeper than Skin" Geotechnics of the City
of Helsinki’s Real Estate Department since 1955. Helsinki.

Rein, J. (2009). AMFORA Amsterdam_Alternative Multifunctional Subterranean Development

Amsterdam. 45th ISOCARP Congress.

Rochat, D., S. Erkman, et al. (2006). Le Recyclage des Matériaux de Construction à Genève. Geneva,
GESDEC.

Rönkä, K., J. Ritola, et al. (1998). "Underground space in land-use planning." Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 13(1): 39-49.

Sterling, R., H. Admiraal, et al. (2010). "Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas."
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Sterling, R. L. (2005). Urban Underground Space Use Planning: A Growing Dilemma. 10th
International Conference Moscow 2005 “Underground Space: Economy and Environment”.

Tetsuya, H. (1990). "Japan's new frontier strategy: Underground space development." Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 5(1-2): 13-21.

Utudjian, É. (1972). L'urbanisme souterrain, Presses universitaires de France.

VÄHÄAHO, I. (2009). Underground Master Plan of Helsinki: A city growing inside bedrock, City of
Helsinki.

Weytingh, i. K. R. and i. C. P. A. C. Roovers (2007). A vision of Zwolle´s subsurface: How the

subsurface can contribute to the sustainable development of Zwolle. The Municipality of Zwolle.

Zektser, I. and L. Everett (2004). Groundwater Resources of the World and Their Use. UNESCO.
16