Paradise is a TV series on Hulu set in a postapocalyptic society living underground in a suburban environment. Silo, on Apple TV+, also explores a postapocalyptic society underground but in an apartment tower. Both shows revolve around mysteries and feature curious heroes challenging manipulative leaders who use secrecy and coercion to maintain control. Despite their similarities, the series present contrasting visions of how humanity might rebuild society in the aftermath of a global catastrophe. They ask a critical question: if the planet becomes uninhabitable, what kind of underground community will we create? Will it be a spacious, comfortable haven or a cramped, functional shelter?
The shows diverge in their answers. Paradise imagines a luxurious underground city designed by billionaires to maintain their wealth and lifestyle, complete with single-family homes and artificial amenities. In contrast, Silo depicts a sparse, government-built tower focused on survival rather than comfort, with rigid regulations and no-frills living conditions. Both series use their environments to explore themes of class, power, and the trade-offs between accommodating many people and ensuring their happiness. These questions mirror real-world housing debates, where decisions about density, affordability, and community identity are contentious.
I spoke with the creators of both shows, Dan Fogelman (Paradise) and Hugh Howey (Silo), to understand their inspirations and the societal commentary embedded in their underground worlds. Both creators drew parallels to today’s housing crises, such as Los Angeles’s struggle with wildfires and rebuilding efforts complicated by affordability issues. These challenges highlight the tension between preserving low-density neighborhoods and building denser housing to accommodate more people.
Fogelman revealed that Paradise was inspired by a meeting with a billionaire, sparking his imagination about how the wealthy might prepare for a climate disaster. The show’s underground city reflects American suburban ideals, with spacious homes and a focus on maintaining normalcy, even as the surface world is uninhabitable. The design is intentionally impractical, prioritizing nostalgia over efficiency. Fogelman emphasized that billionaires building bunkers would likely prioritize comfort and familiarity over practicality.
Howey, on the other hand, drew inspiration from his diverse housing experiences, including life on a boat, and a childhood marked by fears of nuclear war. Silo reflects his interest in how people cope with confinement and the erasure of natural environments. The silo is a utilitarian space with no aesthetic ambitions, focused solely on survival. Howey explored how the lack of natural light and space could drive residents to madness, questioning the minimum conditions needed to sustain humanity without causing despair.
Both series join a growing trend of postapocalyptic media (The Last of Us, Snowpiercer) that use their environments to comment on societal organization after disaster. These stories often present dystopian futures, reflecting our anxieties about climate change, inequality, and governance. While neither Paradise nor Silo offers an optimistic outlook, they provide thought-provoking explorations of how humanity might rebuild, highlighting the challenges of balancing survival with quality of life.
In conclusion, Paradise and Silo use their futuristic underground settings to examine timeless questions about community, power, and housing. They remind us that even in the face of catastrophe, human society will continue to grapple with debates over space, class, and the meaning of home. These shows not only entertain but also invite viewers to consider what kind of world we want to build, both above and below ground.