|
The notion of an "eco-technic civilization" is popular these days.
It is a good alternative to the "retro-eco" idea which is everywhere
today -- that to be in harmony with the earth, one should live in
some sort of 19th century fashion. Actually, people in the 19th
century were not particularly environmentally aware at all. They
scoured the oceans for whales so they could light oil lamps, and
deforested much of the North American continent before coal became
cheaper than wood. Isn't a solar-powered LED light better than that?
Wouldn't you rather cook on a modern gas stove (could be from
renewable sources, including wood gas, or ethanol) rather than on a
primitive wood stove? Team retro-eco then goes farther back in their
wayback machine, to perhaps the preindustrial 18th century, or
Native American primitivism. One problem with this is that it won't
support large populations. The estimated population of the world in
1750 was 791 million people, about 11% of today's number.
Can't we keep the best parts of today's civilization, but fix the
bad parts? Is this such a bad idea? Of course, it's a good idea.
Alas, Team Techno-Eco today is usually pretty stupid too.
Typically, it means reproducing much of what we have today --
basically, Suburban Hell -- with windmills and electric cars. This
doesn't really accomplish much, and barely moves the needle in terms
of resolving our environmentally destructive behaviors.
Let's think about what we want. We want to allow the natural world
to flourish, as it did in perhaps 1000 AD. The oceans, rivers and
lakes should be pristine. Much of the world can be wilderness,
surrounding pockets of civilization.
Let's assume that there will be no depopulation. We need a solution
for 7 billion people. Not more than that (actually, the birth rate
in almost all the world now, outside of Africa, is below
replacement), but 7 billion.
This is a big topic. I think I will approach it by addressing a
number of specific points -- sort of a detail-to-big-picture path,
rather than a top-down path.
You can be very techno while also being very eco. Lots of
the things we like best about present technology have virtually no
ecological impact. For example: the Internet. Love it. Yes, servers
and computers take electricity to run, but it is a relatively small
amount compared to the electricity used for water heaters and other
home heating. The Internet presently consumes
an estimated 10% of total electricity consumption in North
America. But, most of this is actually end devices -- your PC. A
notebook computer uses about 10% of the power of a desktop PC (15
watts vs 150 watts). So, that can also be reduced very easily, with
hardly any disadvantages. You can have your smartphone and iPad in
the ecotechnic future. Why not? There are other things, like modern
antibiotics and the better bits of modern medicine, which we can
also keep, as they are cheap and easy to produce, with little
environmental consequences. Of course there are lots of techno
solutions that actually improve our eco footprint. CFL or, better
yet, LED lights are one. It would be great if we could get solar
panel efficiency above 15%, to perhaps 60% or higher.
Most people will live in cities or towns, and will not be
farmers. Today, about 2% of the U.S. population is directly
involved in food production. Let's say that rises to 10%. That
implies a 5x loss of efficiency -- that each food producer produces
only one-fifth as much food as is normal today. Not necessarily a
good thing. But, if we don't use chemical fertilizers, GMO seeds,
excessive mechanization, and destructive or unsustainable
irrigation, and concentrate on more local food production, maybe
that's a price we can pay. Even so, that means 90% of the population
is not involved in food production. These people DO NOT live on
farms, including mini-ersatz farms (suburbia), which means they live
in cities. These cities should be in the Traditional City format
which I've written about at length. This is good, because a person
living in a Traditional City actually uses far less resources than
someone living in the country. Remember, we are making a plan for
all seven billion of us. It would be best if most of those people
are in compact, ecologically sound Traditional Cities.
Click
...
Here for the Traditional City/Heroic Materialism Archive
target="_blank" March
14, 2010: The Traditional City: Bringing It All Together
target="_blank" April
4, 2010: The Problem With Little Teeny Farms 2: How Many Acres Can
Sustain a Family?
target="_blank" March
28, 2010: The Problem With Little Teeny Farms
In general, the larger and denser the city, the less CO2 emissions
(a proxy for energy use) per person.
Of course, if you tried a little, you could get it way below this.
Better insulation and more trains/fewer cars would do it.
The denser the city, the lower the transport-related energy use.
This is because people who live in denser cities tend to use
trains instead of cars. Trains are 10x more efficient, on a
person/kilometer basis, than cars.
Also, travel distances are a lot shorter, because the city is
dense. Finally, you can make a lot of trips by foot in your
neighborhood, thus eliminating the need for mechanized transport
altogether.
Get rid of the personal automobile (or other "personal
transportation" including bicycles). Transportation should be
primarily by rail -- and, of course, walking. There's really
no need for personal automobiles for people living in cities,
especially if we use a Traditional City format instead of Suburban
Hell. Today, many people live in cities large and small (by "city" I
mean any urban place from a village of 300 up to a megalopolis of 10
million+), who don't have automobiles and don't need them. Just like
that, but more so. Bicycles can be OK as an adjunct to a
fully-realized train system, but what you find is that, if you have
a good train system, you don't need bikes. Plus, excessive reliance
on bicycles has its own problems, which are not nearly as big as the
problems related to automobiles, but actually quite significant,
particularly in the Traditional City environment.
target="_blank" August
1, 2010: The Problem With Bicycles
target="_blank" December
27, 2009: What a Real Train System Looks Like
Once you use trains instead of cars, you free yourself from fossil
fuel dependence because a train system typically runs on
electricity, which can be generated from wind, solar, or what have
you.
What a real train system looks like. The Tokyo region train
system. Click on the pic for a larger version.
Here is some info on energy use by JR East, that I've noted before:
Trains are 10x more energy efficient than
automobiles: The East Japan Railway Company (JR East)
provides the primary rail service for the eastern half of Japan,
including Tokyo. It serves a population of about 70 million
people, and includes metropolitan areas, small cities, and rural
lines. It includes high-speed and normal-speed trains, rush-hour
and off-peak, commuter and intercity, urban and rural. It is a
good measure of a large-scale real-life train system under the
whole spectrum of real-life conditions. For 2004, JR East said
that it averaged 0.35MJ/passenger-km. A liter of gasoline contains
about 35MJ of energy. In other words, the average passenger is
getting the equivalent of about 100km/liter or 223 miles per
gallon while riding the train. Assuming an average 20mpg for a
passenger car and average 1.1 passengers, the train is about 10x
more energy efficient than an automobile.
What is not evident in this comparison, however, is that in a
Traditional City with trains, you make a lot more trips on foot --
to school, to the store, to work. Everything is much closer -- in
walking distance, which is sort of the point. We saw that you
could have a city of as many as 200,000 where you could literally
walk everywhere, and not need a bike, train, or automobile at all.
Second, the distances are much smaller. You don't commute 15 or 20
miles, you commute maybe five miles, which seems like a long way
because there is "so much there there," to paraphrase Gertrude
Stein. If your city is all Place and no NoPlace, there is a
tremendous amount of stuff in five miles of travel. For example,
Manhattan from the southern tip of the island to the northern edge
of Central Park is about seven miles. Just think of all the stuff
in that distance. So, I would also say that intracity trips would
tend to be shorter than is the case for driving around Suburban
Hell. If you make fewer trips (because many are walking), and the
trips are shorter (Traditional City vs. Suburban Hell), and the
train is 10x more efficient per passenger-km, then the true energy
efficiency of the Traditional City/train combo is probably 20x-30x
better than Suburban Hell/personal autos.
But, the best form of transportation is walking. At a population
density of 50,000/square mile, which is about the average for
central Paris (some neighborhoods exceed 100,000/sq mi), a small
city of 40,000 people would fit in a circle of a radius of one-half
mile. That means you could walk from the center to any point in the
city in less than fifteen minutes, or from any point in the city to
the center (where the intercity train station is) in less than 15
minutes, or from one side to the other in less than thirty minutes.
You wouldn't need trains, buses, or any mechanized transport at all
at that size. At a radius of one mile -- everyone can walk to the
central train station within thirty minutes or less -- you could
have a city of 160,000 people, which still wouldn't need a train
system, but might use a small bus system with perhaps two routes.
Of course, we can still use motorized transport where it is
appropriate -- mostly for commercial vehicles, such as cargo vans
and trucks, buses, and taxis.
The big improvements are in things that are not very "techno." Our
Heroic Materialist thinking patterns lead us to believe that the
best solutions involve difficult and expensive technology. But,
actually, the big gains are to be had in things with simple
technology, or no technology at all. For example, if we lived in
smaller living spaces with better insulation, we could cut our
energy and resource use tremendously with hardly any "technology" at
all. Since most people would be living in Traditional Cities,
apartments would be the norm for many, which brings additional
advantages. Even the largest and most opulent townhouses, though
very expensive, would not use very much in the way of natural
resources after they were built -- probably less than a modest
suburban home today. And even if the resident was chauffered around
town by a driver in a twelve-cylinder Mercedes S600 sedan, instead
of taking the subway like normal people, they probably wouldn't be
driving very far, or very often. It's not about hardship and
deprivation. You can live very luxuriously, in the Traditional City,
and also have very modest ecological effect or resource use.
target="_blank" March
20, 2011: Let's Take a Trip to Julianne Moore's House
target="_blank" April
18, 2010: How to Live the Good Life in the Traditional City
822 square foot, three-bedroom apartment.
Put R-45 insulation in the walls and you're done.
All that a family needs to live a very comfortable, modern
lifestyle. Most people should live in something like this (smaller
for singles or couples).
You can have a 25,000sf townhouse or compound as well if you want.
But, of course, only a few would have that -- too few to really
change things much.
target="_blank" This family of four lives
in 165 square feet -- and loves it! You don't have to do
that. But, it shows that 850sf for a family of four or five is
certainly more than enough.
Less meat. If you look at land use in North America, much of
it is for agriculture. Most of the agriculture is monoculture of GMO
crops including corn, soy, wheat and rapeseed. Most of this (about
70% in North America) is used as feed for animals. It takes roughly
ten calories of animal feed to produce one calorie of meat. If we
simply ate the vegetables/beans/grains, instead of meat, then we
would need a lot less land for agriculture, which means that we
could allow marginal lands to return to a natural state, or we could
accept a lower yield per acre (for organically-grown foods) without
difficulty. Also, we would probably have a lot more variety, because
who wants to eat nothing but corn/beans all the time. You don't have
to become a vegan. But, you could eat perhaps 70% less meat than you
do today, and hardly notice it. For example, rather than the "big
slab of meat in the middle" cooking typical of American food today,
you could use meat as more of a flavoring, like pepperoni on pizza,
or chicken in a pasta sauce, or beef in a soup, or pork in a Chinese
dish served in the typical Chinese manner on top of rice, or ham in
a sub sandwich (but not as much ham as is common today). You can
still have the "big slab of meat," but maybe only once or twice a
month.
Wild meat, not farmed. One big idea is that we could
transition to wild meat -- wild game and fish -- from farmed meat
(including fish) common today. The fact of the matter is, the
productivity prairie grassland-->bison pattern, and the natural
productivity of the oceans when left unmolested, is far greater than
any system we can develop. We should just let nature do its thing in
its own natural way, to create far more meat than we can produce by
trying to "control nature." Plus, obviously, there's no work
involved. Much of the North American continent can be returned to
its natural prairie/bison/deer state. We could harvest about 10% of
the total each year, which wouldn't alter the total productivity
much. Likewise, we could allow the oceans and fisheries to return to
their full productivity of perhaps a thousand years ago, and harvest
about 10% of this each year with little negative effect. We would
probably get more from harvesting 10% of a HUGE AMOUNT of fish -- it
was only a hundred years ago that people talked about so many salmon
that it seemed you could walk across a major river on their backs --
than we get today from trying to catch every fish in the depleted
oceans. (Today, roughly 70% of all the mature fish in the ocean are
caught each year.)
Permaculture and other natural farming methods. Some of our
best "eco-technology" today is about farming methods which are very
natural and effective. This is not "traditional" 19th century-style
agriculture at all, but actually new stuff. For example, no-till
farming, or the use of "seedballs" as promoted by Masanobu Fukuoka
of Japan. The "Permaculture" tradition contains many good ideas, but
there are others as well.
Oddly enough, I am not particularly against the "three thousand mile
Caesar Salad." Train and ship transportation are relatively
energy-efficient, and I don't think people are really ready to
transition to a pre-1850 strictly seasonal/local diet. In the
Northeast, there is nothing coming out of local farms from November
to June. Are you ready to go eight months straight with no lettuce,
broccoli, carrots, peppers, apples, berries, pears, fresh tomatoes,
or cucumbers? Not to mention foods that are not local at all. I
kinda like my bananas and oranges in winter. And avocados. Yes, we
could give this up too, but I think that the advantages are
relatively small and the disadvantages relatively great. Maybe we
could have a more seasonal/local diet, but still have some Florida
oranges in winter.
You can use 90% less electricity/energy and still live a
modern lifestyle. One thing people don't understand well is
that you can actually cut your home energy use by 80%-90%, while
still enjoying nearly all the advantages of modern life -- electric
lights, refrigerators, convenient train transportation, the
Internet, washing machines, and so forth. This is not just my
fantasy, but the daily experience of many already, particularly
those living "off grid" with solar power.
May
3, 2009: A Bazillion WindmillsOctober
17, 2010: The Problem of Scarcity 3: Resource Scarcity
We already saw how people in dense, train-centric cities like
Hong Kong or Singapore are using about 10% of the
transportation-related energy of people living in Suburban Hell in
Atlanta or Houston. But, they aren't even thinking about it. Much
the same is true for other aspects of our lives as well. You just
set things up so that they inherently don't need much energy. I've
noted that a typical notebook computer uses only about 10% the
electricity of a desktop computer. So, you just use a notebook
computer instead of a desktop computer -- which has a number of
other advantages as well -- and you can cut your energy use there by
90%, and never have to think about it again.
For example, a lot of energy used by the typical house is for hot
water. It takes a whole lot of heat to heat water, as you know when
you see how long it takes to heat two quarts of water on the stove
in a tea kettle. Now imagine how much heat it takes to heat that 50
gallon tank in your basement! How much less hot water could we use
here? A front-loading washer uses about half the hot water as a
top-load washer, for example. (Ideally, you could just use cold
water to wash and rinse, but often the results aren't so good that
way.)
To take a more extreme line, you don't really need much water at all
to clean yourself. I've "showered" regularly with as little as a
half-gallon of warm water, including washing my hair. It's actually
not that big a deal. For example, target="_blank" this
five gallon "sunshower" for camping is rated for 4-5 showers --
obviously, about one gallon per shower.
You can have high-rise buildings if you want. People tend to
associate high-rise buildings with unpleasant 19th Century
Hypertrophic urban environments, as is common in New York, Chicago
and elsewhere. Either that, or the 20th Century Hypertrophic "tower
in a park" disaster of places like Dubai. They want somewhere much
more pleasant and friendly to live in, like a Traditional City
environment. But, if you want, I think you can combine high-rise
architecture with the best elements of pre-1900 Traditional City
design, creating pleasant outdoor spaces for humans while also
having very tall buildings. This is basically the "towers around a
park" plus "pedestrian streets" combo. This could allow you to do
population densities in excess of 200,000 people per square mile --
although there is really not much advantage to be gained from such a
thing. Yes, density above the typical 8,000/sq mi of densest forms
of Suburban Hell (some parts of Los Angeles) would be good, but you
don't win any awards for trying to push that needle to the limit.
Still, it's an option to consider.
target="_blank" September
23, 2012: Corbusier Nouveau 3: Really Narrow Streets With
High-Rises
August 26, 2012: Corbusier Nouveau 2: More Place and Less
Non-Place
target="_blank" August
19,
2012: Corbusier Nouveau
July
20, 2008: The Traditional City vs. the "Radiant City"
Personally, I prefer the Traditional City in its traditional
low-rise form (typically six stories or less), which is capable of
creating wonderfully pleasant environments with population densities
of 100,000/sq mi or more. However, this is the "eco-technic"
solution, and if tall buildings give you a techno-woody, then go
ahead and do it.
Much less "stuff" -- much more "experience." In other words,
services instead of manufacturing/construction/retail. Also,
potentially much better stuff -- handmade and high-quality --
because, if you are buying much less stuff, you can spend a lot more
on each item. This is a natural consequence of living in compact
Traditional Cities without a car, rather than the suburban
McMansion. If you live in a 800 square foot apartment, and you don't
have a private yard but rather a shared courtyard and local park,
you just don't buy that much. Besides no car, there's no garage,
patio, deck, yard, media room, guest bedroom, attic, breakfast nook
-- thus no need for all that furniture and furnishings, riding lawn
mower, hot tub or pool, snow blower, and all the other crap we spend
our money on before we are even able to spend it on stuff that we
really like. Closets tend to be small. What, then, do you spend your
money on? It tends to be services, or "experiences." Like
restaurants, clubs, bars, tea houses, theaters, music and other
performing arts, galleries or museums, gyms/racquet clubs/yoga
studios/personal trainers/etc., social clubs, day spas, tutoring or
other education, hobbies, travel and lodging, and so forth. All the
attractions of the Traditional City in which you live. These are, by
nature, not very consumptive of natural resources, and have been a
major attraction of cities from far before the industrial era.
target="_blank" May
16, 2010: The Service Economy
target="_blank" September
...
19, 2010: The Service Economy 2: It's Already Here
Along those lines, especially for those of below-average incomes,
the overall result can be much, much better. If you don't own a car,
and can live in a modest arrangement of as little as 150 square feet
which is inherently cheap to build and perhaps you can even build
yourself, and which is easy to heat and cool and takes very little
in the way of utilities, and which is in a beautiful Traditional
City environment, you can enjoy all the advantages of modern
civilization with hardly any expense at all. Everything else is pure
gravy.
This is the opposite of what we have today -- where the basic
"American Lifestyle" including an automobile and a large residence,
is unaffordable to many Americans, including those who are actually
in the top 10% in terms of income! So, instead of "giving things
up," like that was some kind of hardship, we are really getting our
lives back. We no longer need to be lifelong debt slaves to the
American Lifestyle.
target="_blank" June
...
16, 2013: The New World Economics Guide to Curing Afflue target="_blank"nza
target="_blank" December
15,
2013: The New World Economics Guide to Curing Affluenza 2: the
Affluenza of the P target="_blank"oor
September
13,
2009:
...
The Problem of Scarcity
September
20, 2009: The Problem of Scarcity 2: It's All In Your Head
October
17, 2010: The Problem of Scarcity 3: Resource Scarcity
So, what does this all look like?
It is very important to form an image in people's minds. Let's
do that here:
target="_blank"
May
23, 2010: Transitioning to the Traditional City
We live in more compact spaces in beautiful Traditional City
environments -- with all the modern conveniences including good
plumbing and sewage, clean water, electricity, and R-48+ insulation
in colder climates.
Lyon, France. This stuff exists today. Just imitate it. Note that
we have a "Really Narrow" pedestrian street, with people walking
down the middle of the street, and no automobiles in this photo
(parked or moving), although you could probably use this street to
make deliveries and pickups with a truck when needed.
Lyon is the third-largest city in France, with 1.5 million in the
"urban" area and 2.1 million in the "Greater Lyon" area. Note the
Traditional City format, with buildings generally of six stories
or less.
You can use this model for small towns of 5,000 people or
metropolises of 10 million+ people.
Actually, although I am calling this the "eco-technic civilization,"
it actually looks kinda retro. We really don't need any Jetsons
nonsense. It is more about updating the greatest successes of our
past with modern technology such as good plumbing, sewage and
sanitation, electricity, electric trains, and Internet-y stuff. Not
much more than that really. Of course, places like Lyon already have
all that today, so it is not like I am making this stuff up.
We have beautiful public parks within walking distance of our
homes. Public park in Frankfurt, Germany.
We might even introduce courtyard architecture, to provide
parklike places adjacent to our homes. Courtyard of an apartment
building, Paris, France.
Don't really need that suburban yard anymore. And no maintenance!
We have a fully-realized subway, metropolitan surface train, and
intercity rail system -- see the Tokyo Train Map above.
We use renewable energy as much as is reasonable. We can still use
some fossil fuels (or perhaps even hydrocarbons from renewable
sources), but much less than today. This is accomplished mostly by
simply using less energy. If we used 20% of the energy we use today
-- which, as we see, is not real difficult -- then it would not be
hard at all to generate that much smaller amount with renewable
means.
Solar panels being installed on the roof of a large commercial
building.
Our food is grown organically and sustainably, using advanced
Permaculture and other such techniques where possible.
Farms can be smaller, and family-owned, but will still be large
enough to enjoy efficiencies of scale -- probably in the 50-300
acre range.
We don't try to mix "the city" and "farms." Urban places are dense
and distinct from farming areas. People who are not directly
involved in agriculture should live in urban places -- whether
tiny country villages, or huge metropolises.
Much of the North American continent goes back to wild grasslands,
hosting huge herds of bison and other game.
Our oceans, lakes and rivers return to their natural state of
outrageous abundance.
"So thick you could walk across the river on their backs." Salmon
run, Alaska, 1943.
The forests return to their old-growth grandeur because ... what
do we need wood for, anyway?
Instead of "things" -- giant houses, our big suburban backyards,
multiple automobiles, pools, vacation houses, boats, etc. -- we
are more interested in "experiences."
Bar in Venice, Italy.
Bar in Britain.
Whatever you may think about this sort of thing ... the
environmental impact is about the same as planting tulips, and it
has no effect on the bison roaming the plains or old growth
forests hundreds of miles away.
"Experience" rather than "things."
Music, theater, opera, and other performing arts. (La Scala opera
house.)
Superlative architecture. (Shanghai old city and garden.)
Beautiful places for people. (Shanghai old city.)
Doing things rather than "consuming." (Anton Krupicka running in
the Rockies. Can't get much more Eco than this. And, it's free!)
Yes, trains and big mountains go together. You take the train to
the nearest station, then a bus to the trailhead. I used to do
this about every other weekend in Japan, and never needed a car,
even a rental car.
< target="_blank"br>
August
30, 2009: Summer Slack-Off 3: How To Ha target="_blank"ve Fun
Enjoying life rather than buying stuff. (Picnic, 1870s.)
Just wear some nice clothes, walk to the park about five minutes
from your house, and have some coffee. It's about as Eco as you
can be.
You can have an opulent lifestyle, and also be eco-friendly. This
Greenwich Village, Manhattan, New York City townhouse is featured target="_blank"
in theopulentlifestyle.info.
Library of the same Greenwich Village townhouse.
(It's for sale for $17.5 million.)
This townhouse is probably on a typical 20x100 plot of land --
only 2000 square feet! And, it doesn't have a garage.
(Actually, 2000sf is a lot for a townhouse. 1000sf is more common,
even 600sf, but this is the "opulent" version.)
With 10% of land area for Really Narrow Streets, and 10% as public
parks, you could fit over 11,000 houses like this in a square
mile, including the big backyard.
At five people per house (it is 7,000 square feet), that would be
55,000 people per square mile. And this is the "opulent
lifestyle."
For comparison: Greenwich, Connecticut, which is the "Suburban
Hell version of the opulent lifestyle," has a population density
of 930 per square mile, and three automobiles per house. Also very
opulent -- but with catastrophic environmental implications, while
the Greenwich Village townhouse is very eco-friendly.
Do it the Greenwich Village way, not the Greenwich, Connecticut
way. Is that so horrible? Obviously, someone is willing to pay
$17.5 million to live this way, so how bad can it be.
Same Greenwich Village townhouse, backyard. I don't like this
design much, but you can see there is plenty of space. Plus, a
public park nearby too.
"Really Narrow" pedestrian street, about 20 feet wide, and
townhouses, Philadelphia.
On the other end of the spectrum, target="_blank" here's a 178sf
apartment in Brooklyn. You can live in a small space and
still be classy, and have plenty of money and resources for the
Rest of Your Life, instead of exhausting yourself on your stupid
shelter.
(I think it is larger than 178sf total. That probably doesn't
include the bathroom and closets.)
We take pleasure in beautifying our lives. This is how people used
to dress ... in the preindustrial age.
Why are you still wearing that crap from H&M and The Limited?
< target="_blank"br>
November
22, 2009: What Comes After Heroic Materialism?< target="_blank"br>
July
3, 2011: The New World Economics Guide to Men's Fashion
Native American Kiowa girl, authentic traditional clothing, around
1910.
As Eco as it gets. And also very elegant and beautiful. There's no
need to be slummy.
We eat Real Food. Mostly Plants. And Not Too Much.
< target="_blank"br>
July
...
29, 2012: The Omnivore's Dilemma
December
...
2, 2012: Outrageous Health and Fitness 2: Forever
target="_blank"
November
8,
2009:
...
The Future Stinks
No more of this chemical factory food.
Even if you are in a rush, you can make oatmeal or reheat some
soup, or have some salad, bread and cheese.
Or--if you really want to eat in just sixty seconds--some dates,
dried plums and a glass of orange juice. There's no need for
process target="_blank"ed food.
June
...
3, 2012: The New World Economics Guide To Outrageous Health and
Fitness
The Eco-Technic Civilization. Try to imagine it.
If you can imagine it, you can have it! It is actually cheaper
and easier to do than today's Suburban Hell.
And soooo much better.
| |
