Julie Bove > wrote:

: "Robert Miles" > wrote in message
: .com...
: > On 9/5/2011 9:19 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
: >> Yes! I read that too. It said in some areas you had to dig down so
: >> deeply
: >> that you might as well put in a basement. But here in the Seattle area
: >> that
: >> was not necessary at all so basements just add expense to building the
: >> house.
: >
: > I once visited a rich family's house where they had a basement, a
: > sub-basement, and enough empty space under the sub-basement to
: > build another sub-basement level if they had wanted one. It was
: > built mostly just past the edge of a mountain top, where the
: > ground started slanting away at about a 45 degree angle.
: >
: > I've also visited a relative who had a basement and a sub-basement.
: > Also in a mountainous area, but not quite as slanted.
: >
: > In the areas where I've lived, it was easier to get a basement if
: > you chose a slanted property, facing a street on the highest side.

: Gee, I have never heard of a sub-basement.
They were very common in NManhattan under the brownstoe buildings put up
in the 19th century. You had a partially below level which woudl contain
the kitchen, connected by, not only a staircase, but a dumb waiter to get
the food up and the dishes down. Underthat there was an additional
basement, usually used for coal storage with an opening for a chute to get
the coal down. This was standard andaall built by diggine out that hard
Manhattan schist.

Wendy