When I wrote The Celestia Project back in 2015, we lived in a different world. But in some ways, the (digital) writing was already on the wall.
Ten years ago, I won the national Folio Award for a series of futuristic articles about how the green revolution might shape up in coming decades. The Celestia Project imagined a future where climate change had stabilized, cities had become more resilient, and technology had been redirected toward balance (not excess).. It was an intentionally hopeful narrative—less prediction than provocation.
Eleven years later, I can’t claim any special omniscience, but I feel the narrative pointed in a “possible” direction more times than it missed the mark completely.
The Big Wins: Energy and Electrification
If Celestia had a central thesis, it was that clean energy would eventually outcompete fossil fuels—not just morally, but economically.
Solar and wind are no longer fringe technologies. They are now the backbone of new power generation. Utilities that once treated renewables as compliance tools are building entire portfolios around them. Electrification—of vehicles, homes, and appliances—is moving from early adopters into the mainstream.
Electric vehicles, once symbolic, are now practical. Heat pumps, once obscure, are becoming standard equipment in new construction and retrofits alike. Even the humble window air conditioner is being reinvented with inverter-driven, heat-pump technology.
With Celestia I wasn’t spitballing these advancements—I looked around at the big tech stories emerging in the housing industry and bet on my favorites.
Buildings Got Smarter—And More Valuable
Another area where the project feels prescient is in how younger generations view housing. Affordability looms large, but tied to it is the new concept of Value Per Square Foot, where a home’s operational cost figure strongly into its upfront worth.
Ten years ago, high-performance homes were still treated as premium products. Today, energy efficiency, resilience, indoor air quality, and electrification are increasingly baked into codes, financing, and buyer expectations.
The narrative has shifted from “green costs more” to “better buildings cost less over time.”
Developers, insurers, and homeowners now talk openly about durability, insurability, and operational savings. In many ways, the industry has caught up to Celestia’s core idea: that value per square foot matters more than price per square foot.
Nature: Progress, But Not Enough
Celestia envisioned a renewed relationship between humans and the natural world—cities with more green space, buildings that connect occupants to daylight and fresh air, and landscapes designed for resilience.
That vision is partially visible today.
Biophilic design has gone mainstream. Urban tree canopies are expanding in many cities. Pollinator gardens, native landscaping, and water-sensitive design are no longer niche ideas.
But the larger ecological picture remains troubling. As British author George Monbiot points out, fueled by support from oligarchs, beneficiaries of a massive wealth inequity--the fossil fuel industry remains a powerful force for harm. Yet I still believe it’s a lose-lose path, and cleaner energy will ultimately prevail.
Biodiversity loss continues. Climate impacts are accelerating in ways that feel closer to Celestia’s warnings than its resolutions. If anything, the past decade has reinforced one of the project’s quieter insights: human systems and natural systems are inseparable.
We’ve started acting on that idea—but we’re not moving fast enough.
The Sharing Economy: A Mixed Outcome
One of Celestia’s more optimistic bets was that a shift away from ownership would reduce consumption and resource use. That happened—but unevenly.
On the positive side, resale platforms, tool libraries, and shared mobility have gained traction. Many consumers are more comfortable accessing rather than owning certain goods.
But large-scale platforms often took a different path. Instead of reducing resource use, they sometimes increased it—adding traffic, distorting housing markets, and concentrating wealth.
In this case, Celestia was right about behavior trends, but underestimated how business models would shape the outcome.
Technology: Better Than Feared
Where Celestia may have been too cautious was in its view of technology as a potential amplifier of waste.
In reality, some technologies are improving the equation faster than expected.
Smarter grids, better batteries, more efficient HVAC systems, and new materials are all contributing to lower energy use and emissions intensity. Even ideas that once sounded experimental—like roads made with recycled plastics—are beginning to find real-world applications.
Technology didn’t automatically solve the problem. But it didn’t simply make things worse, either.
The Gap That Still Matters
If there’s one place where Celestia was too optimistic, it’s timing. The technologies exist. The frameworks are emerging. The cultural shift is underway.
But emissions haven’t fallen fast enough. Climate risks are intensifying. And the transition remains uneven—geographically, economically, and politically. In other words, the future Celestia imagined is still possible. It’s just not guaranteed.
What makes The Celestia Project resonate today isn’t that it got everything right. It’s that it framed the future as a set of choices, not a fixed outcome. The past decade has shown both sides of that equation: Progress is real, measurable, and accelerating in key sectors, But so are the risks, especially when action lags behind capability
Celestia didn’t predict the future, but it offered a long-term trajectory toward a better world. Ten years later, we’re closer to that direction than many expected—but not as far along as we need to be.
Veteran journalist Matt Power has reported on innovation and sustainability in housing for nearly three decades. An award-winning writer, editor, and filmmaker, he has a long history of asking hard questions and adding depth and context as he unfolds complex issues.
A Decade Later, The Celestia Project Rings Hopeful
When I wrote The Celestia Project back in 2015, we lived in a different world. But in some ways, the (digital) writing was already on the wall.
Ten years ago, I won the national Folio Award for a series of futuristic articles about how the green revolution might shape up in coming decades. The Celestia Project imagined a future where climate change had stabilized, cities had become more resilient, and technology had been redirected toward balance (not excess).. It was an intentionally hopeful narrative—less prediction than provocation.
Eleven years later, I can’t claim any special omniscience, but I feel the narrative pointed in a “possible” direction more times than it missed the mark completely.
The Big Wins: Energy and Electrification
If Celestia had a central thesis, it was that clean energy would eventually outcompete fossil fuels—not just morally, but economically.
That has largely come to pass, and the U.S. invasion of Iran may have just accelerated the transition dramatically.
Solar and wind are no longer fringe technologies. They are now the backbone of new power generation. Utilities that once treated renewables as compliance tools are building entire portfolios around them. Electrification—of vehicles, homes, and appliances—is moving from early adopters into the mainstream.
Electric vehicles, once symbolic, are now practical. Heat pumps, once obscure, are becoming standard equipment in new construction and retrofits alike. Even the humble window air conditioner is being reinvented with inverter-driven, heat-pump technology.
With Celestia I wasn’t spitballing these advancements—I looked around at the big tech stories emerging in the housing industry and bet on my favorites.
Buildings Got Smarter—And More Valuable
Another area where the project feels prescient is in how younger generations view housing. Affordability looms large, but tied to it is the new concept of Value Per Square Foot, where a home’s operational cost figure strongly into its upfront worth.
Ten years ago, high-performance homes were still treated as premium products. Today, energy efficiency, resilience, indoor air quality, and electrification are increasingly baked into codes, financing, and buyer expectations.
The narrative has shifted from “green costs more” to “better buildings cost less over time.”
Developers, insurers, and homeowners now talk openly about durability, insurability, and operational savings. In many ways, the industry has caught up to Celestia’s core idea: that value per square foot matters more than price per square foot.
Nature: Progress, But Not Enough
Celestia envisioned a renewed relationship between humans and the natural world—cities with more green space, buildings that connect occupants to daylight and fresh air, and landscapes designed for resilience.
That vision is partially visible today.
Biophilic design has gone mainstream. Urban tree canopies are expanding in many cities. Pollinator gardens, native landscaping, and water-sensitive design are no longer niche ideas.
But the larger ecological picture remains troubling. As British author George Monbiot points out, fueled by support from oligarchs, beneficiaries of a massive wealth inequity--the fossil fuel industry remains a powerful force for harm. Yet I still believe it’s a lose-lose path, and cleaner energy will ultimately prevail.
Biodiversity loss continues. Climate impacts are accelerating in ways that feel closer to Celestia’s warnings than its resolutions. If anything, the past decade has reinforced one of the project’s quieter insights: human systems and natural systems are inseparable.
We’ve started acting on that idea—but we’re not moving fast enough.
The Sharing Economy: A Mixed Outcome
One of Celestia’s more optimistic bets was that a shift away from ownership would reduce consumption and resource use. That happened—but unevenly.
On the positive side, resale platforms, tool libraries, and shared mobility have gained traction. Many consumers are more comfortable accessing rather than owning certain goods.
But large-scale platforms often took a different path. Instead of reducing resource use, they sometimes increased it—adding traffic, distorting housing markets, and concentrating wealth.
In this case, Celestia was right about behavior trends, but underestimated how business models would shape the outcome.
Technology: Better Than Feared
Where Celestia may have been too cautious was in its view of technology as a potential amplifier of waste.
In reality, some technologies are improving the equation faster than expected.
Smarter grids, better batteries, more efficient HVAC systems, and new materials are all contributing to lower energy use and emissions intensity. Even ideas that once sounded experimental—like roads made with recycled plastics—are beginning to find real-world applications.
Technology didn’t automatically solve the problem. But it didn’t simply make things worse, either.
The Gap That Still Matters
If there’s one place where Celestia was too optimistic, it’s timing. The technologies exist. The frameworks are emerging. The cultural shift is underway.
But emissions haven’t fallen fast enough. Climate risks are intensifying. And the transition remains uneven—geographically, economically, and politically. In other words, the future Celestia imagined is still possible. It’s just not guaranteed.
What makes The Celestia Project resonate today isn’t that it got everything right. It’s that it framed the future as a set of choices, not a fixed outcome. The past decade has shown both sides of that equation: Progress is real, measurable, and accelerating in key sectors, But so are the risks, especially when action lags behind capability
Celestia didn’t predict the future, but it offered a long-term trajectory toward a better world. Ten years later, we’re closer to that direction than many expected—but not as far along as we need to be.
Experience the interactive Celestia Project here.
By Matt Power, Editor-In-Chief
Veteran journalist Matt Power has reported on innovation and sustainability in housing for nearly three decades. An award-winning writer, editor, and filmmaker, he has a long history of asking hard questions and adding depth and context as he unfolds complex issues.