Independence training in American society begins almost at birth—babies are held and carried less than in most societies and spend more time in complete isolation—and continues, despite occasional parental ambivalence, throughout childhood and adolescence. As we leave industrial era behind, we are becoming a more diverse society. The old smokestack economy serviced a mass society. The super-symbolic economy serves a de-massified society. Everything from life styles and products to technologies and the media is growing more heterogeneous. This new diversity brings with it more complexity, which, in turn, means that businesses need more and more data, information, and know-how to function. Thus, huge volumes of the stuff are being crammed into more and more cubbyholes—multiplying them beyond comprehension and stretching them to the bursting point. Today’s changes also come at a faster pace than bureaucracies can handle. An uptick of the yen in Tokyo causes instantaneous purchases and sales in Zurich or London. A televised press conference in Tehran triggers an immediate reply in Washington. A politician’s off-the-cuff remark about taxes sends investors and accountants instantly scurrying to reevaluate a takeover deal. This speed up of change makes our knowledge—about technology, markets, suppliers, distributors, currencies, interest rates, consumer preferences, and all the other business variables—perishable. #RandolphHarris 1 of 21

A firm’s entire inventory of data, skill, and knowledge is thus in a constant state of decay and regeneration, turning over faster and faster. In turn, this means that some of the old bins or cubbyholes into which knowledge has been stuffed begin to break into parts. Others are crammed to overload. Still others become useless as the information in them becomes obsolete or irrelevant. The relationships of all these departments, branches, or units to one another constantly change too. In short, the cubbyhole scheme designed for Year One become inappropriate for Year Two. It is easy to reclassify or sort information stored in a computer. Just copy a file into a new directory. However, try to change organizational cubbyholes! Since people and budgets reflect the scheme, any attempt to redesign the structure triggers explosive power struggles. The faster things change in the outside World, therefore, the greater the stress placed on bureaucracy’s underlying framework and the more friction and infighting. The real trouble starts, however, when turbulence in the marketplace, the economy, or society stirs up completely new kinds of problems or opportunities for the firm. Suddenly decision-markers confront situations for which no cubbyholded information exists. The more accelerated the rate of change in business—and it is speeding up daily—the more such one-of-a-kind situation crop up. #RandolphHarris 2 of 21

On December 3, 1984, the executives of Union Carbide awoke to discover that their pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, had released a toxic cloud and caused the single worst accident in industrial history. The disaster killed more than 3,000 and injured another 200,000. Decisions had to be made instantly, rather than through the usual tortuous process. Equally unique, though far less disastrous, events are hitting business executives like hailstones. In Japan, the managers at Morinaga Chocolate learn that a mysterious killer is poisoning their product…Guinness in Britain is struck by a stock manipulation scandal…Pennzoil and Texaco are flung into a titanic legal struggle…the Manville Corporation is forced to bankrupt itself in dealing with lawsuits arising from having exposed its workers to asbestos…CBS has to fend off a blitzkrieg raid by Ted Turner…United Airlines faces an unprecedented buy-out bid from its own pilots, which then falls apart and triggers a crash on Wall Street. Such events—and many that are smaller and less adequately prepared them, or their bureaucracies. When situations arise that cannot be easily be assigned to predesignated informational cubbyholes, bureaucrats get nasty. They begin to fight over turf, money, people—and the control of information. This unleashes tremendous amounts of energy and raw information. #RandolphHarris 3 of 21

The explosion of energy and raw information, instead of solving problems, all this human output is burned up in the Sturn und Drang. What is still worse, these fratricidal battles make the firm behave irrationally. The vaunted “rationality” of bureaucracy goes out the window. Power, always a factor, now replaces reason as the basis for decision. When a real fluke arises—something that does not fit naturally into anyone’s informational bailiwick—the company’s first instinct is to ignore it. This ostrich response is what happened the first time foreign cars began appearing in the United States of America. The earliest little Opels and Citroen Deux Chevaux that turned up on American streets in the late 1950s drew a shrug from Detroit’s bureaucrats. Even when floods of Volkswagens began to arrive, the giant bureaucratic auto makers preferred not to think about the unthinkable. There were no units inside their companies whose task was to fight foreign competition, no cubbyholes loaded with the necessary information. When bureaucracies are forced to deal with a problem that fts into no one’s existing cubbyhole, they behave in certain stereotyped ways. After some initial fencing, someone inevitably suggests setting up a new unit (with himself or herself at its head). This is instantly recognized for what it could easily become: a budget-eating rival of the older units. Nobody wants that, so a compromise is arrived at. This compromise is that familiar bureaucratic “camelephant,” the interdepartmental committee or task force. Washington is filled with them. So are big companies. #RandolphHarris 4 of 21

Combining the slow, lumbering gait of the elephant with the IQ of the camel, this new unit is, in effect, yet another cubbyhole, only this one is typically staffed by junior people, sent by their permanent departments not so much to solve the problem as to make sure that the new unit does not chip away at existing jurisdictions or budget allocations. Sometimes the new problem is such a hot potato that nobody wants to deal with it. It is either dumped on someone young, inexperienced, and luckless, or it becomes an orphan: another problem on its way to becoming a crisis. Faced by all this infighting, and exasperated CEO decides to “cut through the red tape.” One does this by appointing a “czar,” who theoretically will get the cooperation of all the relevant agencies, branches, and departments. However, lacking the information needed to cope with the problem, the czar, too, winds up depending on the pre-existing cubbyhole system. Next the CEO decides frontal assault on the bureaucrats below will do no good. So he or she tries another standard ploy, quietly assigning the problem to a “troubleshooter” on one’s personal staff, rather than waiting for the slow, resistant bureaucratic machine to act. This attempt to end-run the existing departments only further outrages them, at which point the offended units begin working diligently to assure staff failure. Something like this happened when Ronald Regan assigned staff from his National Security Council, not traditionally an operational unit, to take on functions more normally carried out by the Defense, State, or CIA bureaucracies. #RandolphHarris 5 of 21

The resulting attempt of Ronald Reagan’s decision to deal with “moderates” in Iran, in the hope that they would help release American hostages, blew up in the President’s face. (Afterward, the Tower Commission, investigating the Irangate fiasco, solemnly concluded that the scandal could have been avoided if the White House had “used the system”—meaning relied on the line bureaucracies rather than the White House staff. It left unsaid whether the bureaucracies, which had previously failed either to negotiate the hostage release or to rescue them with military force, would have succeeded where the staff failed.) Similar power games are played within each department, as its subunits also jockey for control of money, people, and knowledge. One might think that infighting stops at moments of dire crisis. Instead, the reverse happens when executive heads are on the block. In politics and even in the military, crisis frequently brings out the worst, rather than the best, in organizations. One has only to read the history of military interservice rivalry in the heat of battle, or the life-and-death struggles between rival British intelligence and covert action agencies during World War II, to glimpse the fanaticism that purely bureaucratic struggles can generate—especially during crisis. Businesses are not exempt from this destructive game-playing and fanaticism. For the image of the “rational” bureaucracy is false. It is power, not reason, that drives the classical pyramids that still litter the business landscape. #RandolphHarris 6 of 21

Any hope of replacing bureaucracy, therefore, involves more than shifting people around, laying off “fat,” clustering units under “group vice-presidents,” or even breaking the firm into multiple “profit centers.” Any serious restructure of business or government must directly attack the organization of knowledge—and the entire system of power based on it. For the cubbyhole system is in crisis. When the Japanese prime minister Hayato Ikeda visited France in the 1960s, Charles de Gaulle is said to have asked, “Who is that transistor salesman?” The faux pas has rattled down through history, but for its economic size and significance no country was more underestimated by the rest of the World than Japan in the 1960s and ‘70s. (Even more underestimated was the transistor, but that is another story.) In the 1980s and early 1990s, the reverse was true. Suddenly the yen threatened to displace the dollar, Japanese money was taking over Hollywood and Rockefeller Center, and Japan was being hailed as “No. 1.” Fears of a Japanese superstate rippled across the World’s financial pages. As the new century arrived, Econo-Land’s lemmings, marching in step, assured the World that China would soon be No. 1 and that Japan was about to become its economic and political “poodle.” Yet Japan could surprise the World once more. The basic changes it makes—or refuses to make—in the decade ahead will impact not only the cars we drive, the energy we use, the games we play and the music we enjoy but quite possibly the way we treat our elderly, the price of a retirement condo and the future of the dollar. #RandolphHarris 7 of 21

What Japan does will be especially relevant to a whole class of nations that, like the United States of America, members of the European Union and South Korea, are transitioning toward knowledge—intensivity. Unburdened by a large-scale peasant population, they are not trisected, like China, India, Mexico, or Brazil, but bisected—internally divided between a shrinking smokestack sector and a growing knowledge sector. Countless analyses purport to explain why the Japanese miracle came to a screeching standstill in the 1990s. What occurred was a strange crash, as crashes go. One could stroll along Omotesando in Tokyo, where foreigners and teenage fashionistas stop for a Crazy Large Soy Hazelnut Vanilla Latte, half decaf, and see little evidence of distress. As Kenichi Ohmae later wrote in his book The Invisible Continent, “Where are the beggars?”…Where were the double-digit unemployment rates?” Sales of fancy bottled water were zooming. Cruise ships were fully booked. And hordes of young Japanese women were buying “enough Hermes, Prada, Gucci, Louis Vuitton and similar products to make Japan the number one purchasing nation for most luxury brands.” Yet even now Japan’s economy feels the after-effects of a real estate bubble that sent property prices plummeting 60 percent between 1990 and 2003. In Tokyo, prices fell almost 80 percent. (And it could happen again once this new recession sets in that is expected in 2023.) #RandolphHarris 8 of 21

And real estate alone does not explain why Japan’s banks as late as 2003 still carried around nonperforming loans amounting, according to whom you believe, to around $400 billion. Worse yet, manufacturing output in 2003 was 10 percent below its 1991 level and, according to a Council on Foreign Relations report, Japan’s share of both global output and exports “was shrinking for the first time in a century.” What happened? Why did the superstate shrivel up? (Could China make the same mistakes? Its real estate bubble already seems to parallel Japan’s experience.) However, it takes more than real estate fizz—or bad bank loans—to explain what happened to Japan. The long-ticking bomb that blew Japan’s economy apart was, in fact, failure at the level of the deep fundamental of time. We interact largely with extensions of our own egos. We stumble over the consequences of our past acts. We are drowning in our own excreta (another consequence of the Toilet Assumption). We rarely come into contact with a force which is clearly and cleanly Not-Us. Every struggle is a struggle with ourselves, because there is a little piece of ourselves in everything we encounter—houses, clothes, BMWs, cities, machines, even our foods. There is an uneasy, anesthetized feeling about this kind of life—like being trapped forever inside an air-conditioned BMW with power steering and power brakes and only the car’s information center to talk to. Our World is only a mirror, and our efforts mere shadowboxing—yet shadowboxing in which we frequently manage to hurt ourselves. #RandolphHarris 9 of 21

To understand how nanotechnology might unfold, it makes sense to look at some of its easier and more difficult applications. The result will not be a timetable, or even a series of milestones, but it should give a better picture of what we can expect as nanotechnology develops from simple, crude, costly beginnings to a state of greater sophistication and lower cost. Molecular manufacturing will make better products possible. We are likely to see some early applications in at least two areas: stronger materials and faster computers. Strong materials are simple, and will be hard to pass up. Computers are more complex, but the payoff will be enormous. The computer industry has been under steady pressure to make computer ships ever smaller. As sizes have shrunk, costs had fallen, but are not rebounding, and efficiency and capabilities have increased. The pressure to continue this process pushes in the direction of nanotechnology; it may even be one of the major motivations behind developing the technology. Even technologies with enormous potential can lie dormant unless there are significant payoffs along the way to reward those who pioneer them. That is one of the reasons integrated circuits developed so rapidly; each advance found an immediate market willing to apply it and enrich the innovator that created it. #RandolphHarris 10 of 21

Does molecular engineering have this kind of payoff? I think it does. Remembering that we may be less than ten years away from “hitting the wall” as far as scaling our existing electronics goes, a great deal of research is presently going on in the area of molecular and quantum electronics. The payoff is easy to calculate: You can build devices one thousand times faster, more energy-efficient, and less expensive than those we are currently using—at least one hundred times better than exotic materials being considered to replace silicon when it reaches its limits. Electronic researchers will keep pushing for smaller devices because silicon only has so much potential. At some point we will reach difficulties: some people say at a hundred-fifty nanometers, others think it is beyond that. What will happen then? It is hard to think that the electronics industry will say, “Stop here. We will stop evolving because we cannot shrink a device.” From an economic point of view, in order to survive, an industry has to innovate continuously. The computer industry’s push toward devices of molecular size has an air of inevitability. Today’s researchers struggle to build molecular electronics using bulk techniques, with no products yet in sight; with molecular manipulators, they will finally have the tools they need for fast and accurate experimentation. Once successful designs are developed, packaged, and tested, the pressure will be on to learn to make them in quantity at low cost. The competitive pressures will be fierce, because advanced molecular electronics will be orders of magnitude better than today’s integrated circuits, untimely enabling the construction of computers with trillionfold greater capability. #RandolphHarris 11 of 21

At the opposite extreme from molecular electronics—complex at first worth billions of dollars per gram—are structural materials: worth only dollars per kilogram in most applications, but much simpler in structure. Once molecular manufacturing becomes inexpensive, structural materials will be important products. These materials play a central role in almost everything around us, from cars and aircraft to furniture and houses. All of these objects get their size, shape, and strength from a structural skeleton of some sort. This makes structural materials a natural place to begin in understanding how nanotechnology can improve products. Cars today are mostly made of steel and carbon fiber, aircrafts of aluminum, and buildings and furniture largely of steel and wood. These materials have a certain “strength-to-weight ratio” (more properly, a strength-to-density ratio). To make cars stronger and lighter, we have to use new materials like carbon fiber so they are not weaker and less safe. Clever design can change of material. Making something heavy is easy: just leave a hollow space, then fill it with water, sand, or lead shot. Making something light and stronger is more difficult, but often makers try to make cars lightweight, aircraft manufacturers try harder, and with spacecraft manufactures it is an obsession. Reducing mass saves materials and energy. The strongest materials in use today are mostly made of carbon. Kevlar, used in racing sails and bulletproof vests, is made of carbon-rich molecular fibers. #RandolphHarris 12 of 21

Expensive graphite composites, used in tennis rackets and jet aircraft, are made using pure-carbon fibers. Perfect fibers of carbon—both graphite and diamond—would be even better, but cannot be made with today’s technology. Once molecular manufacturing gets rolling, though, such materials will be commonplace and inexpensive. What will these materials be like? To picture them, a good place to start is wood. The structure of wood can vary from extremely light and porous, like balsa wood, to denser structures like Oak. Wood is made by molecular machinery in plants from carbon-rich polymers, mostly cellulose. Molecular manufacturing will be able to make materials like these, but with a strength-to-weight ratio about a hundred times that of mediocre steel, and tens of times better than the best steel. Instead of being made of cellulose, those materials will be made of carbon in forms like diamond. Diamond is emphasized here not because it is shiny and expensive, but because it is strong and potentially inexpensive. Diamond is just carbon with properly arranged atoms. Companies are already learning to make it from natural gas at low pressure. Molecular manufacturing will be able to make complex objects of the stuff, built lighter than balsa wood but stronger than steel. #RandolphHarris 13 of 21

Products made of such materials could be startling by our present standards. Objects could be made that are identical in size and shape to those we make today, but simultaneously stronger and 90 percent lighter. This is something to keep in mind next time you are lugging a heavy object around. (If something needs weight to hold it in place, it would be more convenient to add this ballast when the thing is in its proper location than to build in the extra weight permanently.) Better structural materials will mark aircraft lighter, stronger, and more efficient, but will have the greatest effect on spacecraft. Today, spacecraft can barely reach orbit with both a safety margin and cargo. To get there at all, they have to drop off parts like boosters and takes along the way, shedding weight. With strong materials, this will change: as in the space-travel-for-business scenario, spacecraft will become more like aircraft today. They will be rugged and reliable, and strong enough and light enough to reach space in one piece. The term “science,” as it is generally used today—referring to the work of those in physical, chemical, and biological disciplines—was popularized in the early nineteenth century, with significant help from the formation of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1831 (although Murray’s New English Dictionary gives as the earliest use of the term in its modern sense). By the early twentieth century, the term had been appropriated by others, and it has since become increasingly familiar as a description of what psychologists, sociologists, and even anthropologists do. It will come as no surprise that I claim this is a deceptive and confusing use of the term, in part because it blurs the distinction between processes and practices. #RandolphHarris 14 of 21

Using definitions proposed by the British philosopher Michael Oakeshott, we may say that “processes” refers to those events that occur in nature, such as the orbiting of planets or the melting of ice or the production of chlorophyll in a leaf. Such processes have nothing to do with human intelligence, are governed by immutable laws, and are, so to say, determined by the structure of nature. If one were so inclined, one might even say that processes are the creation of God. By “practices,” on the other hand, Oakeshott mean the creations of people—those events that result from human decisions and actions, such as writing or reading this essay or forming a new government or conversing at dinner or falling in love. These events are a function of human intelligence interacting with environment, and although there is surely a measure of regularity in human affairs, such affairs are not determined by natural laws, immutable or otherwise. In other words, there is an irrevocable difference between a blink and a wink. A blink can be classified as a process; it has physiological causes which be understood and explained within the context of established postulates and theories. However, a wink must be classified as a practice, filled with personal and to some extent unknowable meanings and, in any case, quite impossible to explain or predict in terms of causal relations. #RandolphHarris 15 of 21

What we call science, then, is the quest to find the immutable and universal laws that govern processes, presuming that there are cause-and-effect relations among these processes. It follows that the quest to understand human behaviour and feeling can in no sense except the most trivial be called science. One can, of course, point to the fact that students of both natural law and human behaviour often quantify their observations, and on this common ground classify them together. A fair analogy would be to argue that, since a housepainter and artist both use pain, they are engaged in the same enterprise and to that same end. The scientist uses mathematics to assist in uncovering and describing nature. At best, sociologists (to take one example) use quantification merely to give some precision to their ideas. However, there is nothing especially scientific in that. All sorts of people count on things in order to achieve precision without claiming they are scientists. Bali bondsmen count the number of murders committed in their cities; judges count the number of divorce actions in their jurisdictions; business executives count the amount of money spent in their stores; and young children like to count their toes and fingers in order not to be vague about how many they have. Information produced by counting may sometimes be valuable in helping a person get an idea, or, even more so, in providing support for an idea. However, the mere activity of counting does not make science. #RandolphHarris 16 of 21

Nor does observing things, though it I sometimes aid that if one is empirical, one is scientific. To be empirical means to look at things before drawing conclusions. Everyone, therefore, is an empiricist, with the possible exception of paranoid schizophrenics. To be empirical also means to offer evidence that others can see as clearly as you. You may, for example, conclude that I like to write essays, offering evidence that I have written this one and several others besides. You may also offer as evidence a tape recording, which I can supply on request, on which I tell you that I like to write essays. Such evidence may be said to be empirical, and your conclusion empirically based. However, you are not therefore acting as a scientist. You are acting as a rational person, to which condition many people who are not scientists may make a just claim. Scientists do strive to be empirical and where possible precise, but it is also basic to their enterprise that they maintain a high degree of objectivity, which means that they study things independently of what people think or do about them. The opinions people hold about the external World are, to scientists, always an obstacle to be overcome, and it is well known that the scientist’s picture of the external World is quite different from what most people believe the World to be like. Moreover, in their quest for objectivity, scientists proceed on the assumption that the objects they study are indifferent to the fact that they are being studied. #RandolphHarris 17 of 21

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle indicates that at subatomic levels particles do “know” they are being studied, at least in a special meaning of “knowing.” An electron, for example, changes either its momentum or its position when it is being tracked—id est, when it interacts with a photon—but the electron does not, in the usual sense of the word, “know” or “care” that the interaction is taking place. Nor fact relives the scientist of inquiring into their values and motivations and for this reason alone separates science from what is called social science, consigning the methodology of the latter (to quote Gunner Myrdal) to the status of the “metaphysical and pseudo-objective.” The status of social-science methods is further reduced by the fact that there are almost no experiments that will reveal a social-science theory to be false. Theories in social science disappear, apparently, because they are boring, not because they are refuted. However, as Karl Popper has demonstrated, science depends on the requirement that theories must be stated in a way that permits experiments to reveal that they are false. If a theory—as, for example, Dr. Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex. Psychiatrists can provide many examples supporting the validity of the theory, but they have no answer to the question “What evidence would prove the theory false?” Believers in the God theory (sometimes called Creation Science) are silent on the question “What evidence would show that there is no God?” #RandolphHarris 18 of 21

I do not say, incidentally, that the Oedipus complex and God do not exist. Nor do I say that to believe in them is harmful—far from it. I say only that, there being no tests that could, in principle, show them to be false, they fall outside the purview of science, as do almost all theories that make up the content of “social science.” Our ideas about institutionalizing the aged, psychotic, those with intellectual disabilities, and infirm are based on a pattern of thought that we might call the Toilet Assumption—the notion that unwanted matter, unwanted difficulties, unwanted complexities, and obstacles will disappear if they are removed from out immediate field of vision. We do not connect the trash we throw from the car window with the trash in our streets, and we assume that replacing old buildings with new expensive ones will alleviate poverty in the slums. The housing program should really be a national system so we can pay people and give the subsidies housing if they choose to go somewhere that is underpopulation so we can spread them out and maybe they can find solutions among the general population, instead of being segregated and making other people’s lives difficult with their creation of a vortex of negativity. Nonetheless, we throw the aged and psychotic into institutional holes where they cannot be seen. Our approach to social problems is to decrease their visibility: out of sight, out of mind. This is the real foundation of racial segregation and segregation of the disabled, until, by accident, they are placed in a community where they are too dysfunctional and dangerous to miss. #RandolphHarris 19 of 21

The result of our social efforts has been to remove the underlying “problems” of our society father and farther from daily experience and daily consciousness, and hence to decrease, in the mass of population, the knowledge, skill, resources, and motivation necessary to deal with them. In 2006, I was shocked to see people in Beijing, China asleep, during the day, on the street and sometimes with their baby. I had never seen anything like that before. However, as we approach 2023, and the Capitol of the State of California is renovated, shortly after the Golden 1 Center in Sacramento was funded with about half a billion taxpayer dollars, and the Safe Credit Union Theater used hundred of millions of taxpayer dollars to give it a 1970 themed make over, and as crime erupts on our streets, and people without homes are forming their own row of tents across the street from million dollar homes, in parks, creek beds, and on the sides of freeways, the mismanagement and abuse of taxpayers is too big to go unnoticed. As these discarded problems rise to the surface again—a riot, a protest, an expose in the mass media—politicians are as quit as if they let a little raw sewage slip out of their undercarriage at dinner party. Nothing has miraculously vanished. Excrement is conspicuously present in the public eye. However, one thing I have also noticed is that many of these people that are without homes and sleeping in tents are not only more attractive, but also have better hygiene than my neighbours and just need a helping hand, and they are peaceful and quiet. #RandolphHarris 20 of 21

In the hard reality of everyday life, the incorruptible human is at best an inconvenience, an obstacle to the smooth functioning of vast institutional machinery. We have a government and taxes to help those that cannot help themselves, not to use for renovations when homelessness is at an all-time historical high. Humans who proclaim Thy sovereignty in witness to Thy truth, acknowledging Thy guidance, Thy wisdom, Thy power; humans who break every idol blindly wrought, dispelling the darkness with Thy spirit of light. O Lord, give us steadfast humans! Give us humans to guide us, humans to make us know, that Torah is our way of life, and righteousness our goal. With such humans to guide us, our faith shall never fail. Our courage never falter; our future is assured. God forbid that we should forsake the Law to depart from our religion either to the right or the left. Whosoever is zealous of the Law and maintaineth the covenant, let us follow one. Hide your children and pull down the heathen altars, and recover the Law out of the hand of the heathens. Be ye zealous for the Torah and give your lives for the covenant of your fathers. Remember what our fathers did in times gone by. Throughout all the ages none that put their trust in God were overcome. Therefore be strong, my people, and show yourselves humans in behalf of the Torah; for by it shall ye obtain glory. How shall we be able, being so few, to fight against so many people and so strong? With the God of Heaven it is all one to deliver us with a large number, or with a small one. For the victor of battle standeth not in the multitude of a host; but strength cometh from God. We fight for our lives and our Torah. The Lord will overthrow them. Be not afraid. Let all the nations know that there is One who will protect and save America. #RandolphHarris 21 of 21

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD

Lincoln, CA | from the high $600,000s

Now Selling!

 Cresleigh Havenwood is a highly desired collection of luxury single family homes, featuring four state-of-the-art home designs ranging from approximately 2,300 square feet to 3,400 square feet.

This expansive two-story floor plan is great for growing families. The main level offers the best of open-concept living including a great room, a generous dining area and kitchen, and a formal dining room, where you’ll enjoy gathering with loved ones on special occasions.

Flex rooms allow for added bedrooms, multigenerational suites or office space to fit your family’s lifestyle needs. Whichever home you choose, it will be an immediate charmer. Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes with owned solar included!

Located off of Virginiatown Road and McCourtney Road, residents of the 83 homesites of Cresleigh Havenwood will benefit from a brand new neighborhood in the charming City of Lincoln. 

Palo Verde Park, is  just down the street and there’s plenty of recreation to take part in all around town.  Come make a Cresleigh Home your forever home. #CresleighHomes