Why Some People Thrive In Underground Workspaces – and Others Don’t

Why It Matters

As cities run out of space, working in an underground office is no longer a fringe idea. But whether people accept these spaces depends less on engineering, and more on psychology.

Key Takeaways

• People who feel in control of their lives are far more open to working in underground offices.
• Those who feel controlled by external forces are more likely to reject underground offices outright.
• Designing underground workplaces that enhance autonomy may be key to making dense cities work.
  

The Push Underground and the Human Problem

From Singapore to Tokyo, cities are increasingly looking underground to solve land scarcity, rising property prices, and climate pressures. Underground office spaces promise clear benefits: they free up surface land, reduce urban sprawl, and shield workers from heat, pollution, and extreme weather.

Engineers have made major strides in solving practical challenges such as ventilation, lighting, and energy efficiency. Yet one issue remains stubbornly unresolved: many people simply do not want to work underground.

Until now, this resistance has often been dismissed as vague discomfort or outdated stigma. This research takes a different approach. It asks a more precise question: what psychological mechanism explains why some people accept underground offices, while others actively avoid them?

Control, Not Claustrophobia, Shapes Attitudes

The study focuses on a well-established psychological trait known as locus of control. In simple terms, it describes whether people feel that they shape their own lives, or whether they believe external forces, such as luck, fate, or authority, dominate outcomes.

People with an internal locus of control tend to believe they can influence their environment and cope with challenges. Those with an external locus of control are more likely to feel constrained by circumstances beyond their control.

In the first study, more than 1,000 members of the public in Singapore were asked how they would feel about working in a hypothetical underground office. The results were clear. People who felt strongly influenced by external forces consistently reported more negative emotions, stronger feelings of confinement, and greater resistance to the idea of working underground.

Notably, believing strongly in one’s own control did not automatically create positive feelings about underground work. What mattered most was the absence of external control, suggesting that fear of being constrained, rather than confidence alone, drives resistance.

From Attitudes to Real-World Choices

The second study moved beyond hypothetical reactions to examine actual behaviour. Researchers compared employees working in underground offices with those in similar above-ground roles within the same industry.

Here, the psychological divide became even clearer. Employees who worked underground were more likely to have an internal sense of control and less likely to believe that external forces shaped their lives. In contrast, those working above ground showed higher levels of external control.

In other words, people who feel less able to manage their environment appear to self-select out of underground work. This helps explain why underground offices can struggle with recruitment, even when physical working conditions meet professional standards.

Crucially, the study also found that working underground did not weaken people’s sense of control over time. Those who accepted underground roles did not become more stressed or less autonomous. The barrier, it seems, lies in perception — not experience.

Why Design Alone Is Not Enough

For years, efforts to improve underground offices have focused on technical upgrades: brighter lighting, better air quality, improved layouts. While necessary, this research suggests such measures may miss the deeper issue.

Resistance to underground work is rooted in perceived loss of autonomy. Environments that limit visibility, choice, and personal control trigger stronger negative reactions among people who already feel constrained by external forces.

This explains why two people can experience the same underground space very differently. It also suggests that changing attitudes may require more than architectural fixes; it may require reframing how these spaces are presented, labelled, and managed.

Business Implications

For employers, developers, and policymakers, the message is practical and urgent.

First, underground offices should be designed to maximise perceived control. This includes giving workers more autonomy over lighting, temperature, workspace layout, and schedules, not just meeting minimum standards.

Second, language and branding matter. Avoiding terms like “basement” and reframing underground floors in neutral or positive ways may reduce psychological resistance before people ever step inside.

Third, organisations should recognise that resistance to underground work is not a performance issue. It reflects deep-seated beliefs about control and autonomy. Flexible working options, personalisation, and visible exit routes can help counter these concerns.

As cities grow denser, the success of underground workspaces will depend not only on engineering solutions, but on whether people feel empowered within them.

Authors & Sources

Eun Hee Lee (University of Nottingham Malaysia), Adam Charles Roberts (ETH Zurich), Kian-Woon Kwok (Nanyang Technological University), Josip Car (King’s College London), Chee-Kiong Soh (Nanyang Technological University), Georgios Christopoulos (Nanyang Technological University)

Original article: Scientific Reports (2025)

---