Which of the two lifestyles hinted at below seems to be on the right track?
re Plan A: In an article entitled Living small is the next big thing by Judy Gerstel (a reporter for The Toronto Star) the latest book is featured by Sarah Susanka (Not So Big Life), author of also The Not So Big House.
[A link to both - and so much more, at no extra charge]
The opening lines of the article prepare you well for what lies ahead: Supersizing is offensive; everything small, simple and supple is lauded and one and all are urged to tread minimally upon the land.
Ms Susanka explains to the reporter, while sitting on the balcony of a 540-square-foot condo in Toronto, that she is hopeful that society will soon start to live in a “not-so-big” way.
Is "small" on the way to go or on the right track? Consider now Plan B.
re Plan B: Two hours west on the 401 Deforest City developers are enticing home owners to consider geothermal heating by sharing helpful information about the cost and function of the units and saying (with geothermal) we “don’t have to scrimp on life’s little luxuries... as energy costs rise.”
We’re told we “won’t have to live without air conditioning, a heated pool or in a smaller home.” (The London Free Press Home magazine, Spring 2008)
Apparently, in Deforest City (London, Ont.) there are no limits to land, large building lots, water for pools or builders who can help you “harness some of the energy that’s locked in the ground and use it to have that luxurious lifestyle you desire.”
There are other plans as well, I'm sure, but which of the above approaches seems to be headed in the best direction?
No comments:
Post a Comment