What happened to underground Amsterdam city?

September 4th, 2015 at 12:59:13 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
In the mid 19th century when the first subways were built in London, the technique was called "cut and cover". The street was closed and the tunnel was dug out. A roof was built over the train, then covered over.



The resulting chaos meant that by the 1890's giant boring machines were used to build the underground, and it adopted it's new nickname that remains today, The Tube.

Amsterdam seemed to have decided to use it's canals, by emptying them and building parking and shopping using this cut and cover method.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1578139/New-underground-city-planned-for-Amsterdam.html

What happened to this project?
September 4th, 2015 at 1:38:11 PM permalink
DJTeddyBear
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 5
Posts: 265
Interesting concept.

What happened? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps it's still on schedule.

Of course, although that article was written in 2008, it said construction might begin by 2018.

So maybe both answers are accurate: Nothing AND on schedule...
Ignorance is bliss and knowledge is power. But having only some facts can get you into trouble!
September 4th, 2015 at 3:37:05 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569

Atlanta is losing $8 million a year on Underground Atlanta.


Underground skyscrapers have been proposed for the zocalo in Mexico City.

I have to believe that they will have at least one spot with underwater viewing in Amsterdam.
September 4th, 2015 at 3:54:15 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
Underground skyscrapers have been proposed for the zocalo in Mexico City.


If I had a dime for every outlandish, impractical and hugely expensive idea ever proposed for Mexico City, I could afford to buy a second-rate European monarchy and turn it into a Renaissance Art Museum.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
September 7th, 2015 at 1:57:51 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
If I had a dime for every outlandish, impractical and hugely expensive idea ever proposed for Mexico City, I could afford to buy a second-rate European monarchy and turn it into a Renaissance Art Museum.


The population of Mexico City was 345,000 in the year 1900, which would have made it in the top 10 USA cities. It's amazing how fast it exploded in population. I guess inevitably it attracts people who wish it grew in a more orderly manner.

1 New York city, NY *................ 3,437,202
2 Chicago city, IL................... 1,698,575
3 Philadelphia city, PA.............. 1,293,697
4 St. Louis city, MO................. 575,238
5 Boston city, MA.................... 560,892
6 Baltimore city, MD................. 508,957
7 Cleveland city, OH................. 381,768
8 Buffalo city, NY................... 352,387
9 San Francisco city, CA............. 342,782
10 Cincinnati city, OH................ 325,902
..
36 Los Angeles city, CA............... 102,479

I think Chicago has attracted the most speculative proposals of any city in the USA.

Mile high tower for Chicago
September 7th, 2015 at 4:10:29 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
In the 90s,t here was a much publicized idea to cut long, wide tunnels in the tops of the surrounding mountains to provide "ventilation" for the crud making up 90% of the city's atmosphere (the rest is dirty air).

It was topped by a similar proposal for long, slightly less wide tunnels, with fans to move the air around. No one said how the fans would be powered.

Later people have proposed HUGE underground parking structures, occupying the whole of downtown, or under several neighborhoods.

I'm sure there are more.

Some outlandish, impractical and hugely expensive ideas were implemented, such as forcing rivers into tubes and drying out much of the lakes and wetlands natural to the city. of course now they get flooded often, because, surprise!, water flows down...
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER