The changing homestead, excavation, water and land-use concepts.
Historical source, edited for subject separation. This record is adapted from a saved public Fooy page. Its earlier navigation, media and separately managed research passages were removed. It is not an active standard or site-specific engineering guidance.
01 · Ground Zero
From showcase to working homestead
The early visual direction leaned toward a more elaborate, separated development. The concept was pared back around practical daily life and productive land.
SHIFT 01
Fewer standalone amenities; one useful core
Earlier direction: separate structures and resort-like features occupied space and attention. Current direction: organize the home, basecamp, and shared utility functions around a barndominium-style core, with RV-height bays where the project needs workshop or equipment access.
Why: reduce duplicated infrastructure and make the first phase easier to use and maintain. A detached shop remains an option where a process needs separation for dust, noise, heat, or safety.
Current concept · layout not engineered
SHIFT 02
Remove the guest house and pool from the first plan
Current direction: leave those amenities out of the practical first-phase layout. Use the recovered space for an orchard and other productive landscaping, while combining the water feature with the site’s water-storage plan.
Why: the early priority is a livable, useful pilot that supports food production and land restoration. Leisure features can be reconsidered later if the site, budget, and operating plan support them.
Deferred from first phase
02 · Water
Make existing excavation part of the water plan
The main Ground Zero direction became clearer: first look for ways to repurpose excavation sites as ponds, then design collection and distribution around the actual terrain.
SHIFT 03
Existing excavations become candidate ponds
Earlier exploration: collection at high points and distributed storage could support outer home plots, with roof catchment as one possible source. Current Ground Zero priority: make suitable existing excavation sites the primary pond candidates, with natural runoff, swales, and roof collection feeding a larger site-wide system where conditions allow.
Why: reuse disturbed ground and make water retention a defining part of the landscape plan. An excavation is only a candidate: soil permeability, groundwater, catchment, slope stability, water quality, spillway design, and permits still have to be checked.
Priority concept · site dependent
SHIFT 04
Use elevation and terrain instead of forcing one layout
Current direction: collection may happen at higher points and be stored or distributed where gravity, pumps, and access make sense. Smaller collection points can also serve outer home plots when the land and structures call for them.
Why: one pond or one roof-catchment design will not fit every slope or parcel. The system should follow the contours and the existing structures.
Flexible design rule
SHIFT 05
Keep this collection concept non-potable
Current direction: collected water is being considered for farming and other suitable non-potable uses. No treatment system is assumed in this concept. Any greywater reuse would need its own plumbing separation, health review, and local approval.
Why: keep the early water plan focused and honest about its intended use. Drinking-water supply and treatment are separate decisions and are not solved by a pond or rainwater tank.
Use limits must be designed
Visual reference · Water integrated with place
What the waterfall-house concept suggests
This image is a visual prompt for thinking about water as part of the site experience—not a plan to copy.
Visual reference shared with the Fooy project. The image credits Fallon Outdoors; source and engineering details have not been independently verified.
Adapt the systems thinking; keep Fooy’s priorities
Worth exploring: make water routes visible, let the landscape guide collection and movement, and consider whether a living roof or gravity-fed feature serves a real purpose on a particular site.
Not assumed for Fooy: a hidden luxury house, plunge pool, or diverted stream. The current Ground Zero direction centers on suitable excavation ponds, farming water, productive land, and a practical barndominium basecamp.
Micro-hydro stays conditional: only study it where measured flow and elevation, water rights, ecological effects, and permitting support a viable installation. The artwork does not establish that the pictured system would work.
Reference · not an engineering design
03 · Land & food
Give more of the site a productive job
Landscaping shifted from visual decoration toward a mix of food, shelter, habitat, and carefully placed infrastructure.
SHIFT 06
Orchard and gardens take priority over unused amenity space
Current direction: put an orchard, garden, greenhouse, and useful landscape buffers into land recovered from dropped features. Co-locate livestock functions efficiently; an integrated barn chicken coop is worth evaluating where husbandry, ventilation, sanitation, and access work.
Why: the first site should contribute to food resilience and daily use rather than carry a large amount of nonproductive footprint.
Current land-use priority
SHIFT 07
Keep a timber belt, but shape it around the wind
Current direction: retain at least two rows of timber trees along the outer boundary as a starting concept, with spacing and openings shaped to the prevailing winds and site access. A wind turbine is a possible addition only where measurement supports it.
Why: a tree line can provide shelter and future timber, but a solid wall can create turbulence or block useful airflow. The final species, row spacing, fire breaks, and turbine location need local study.
Concept · species and spacing open
04 · Energy
Use roofs first; let the site earn the rest
Energy ideas moved toward using built surfaces before consuming more ground, while keeping wind and water power conditional.
SHIFT 08
Put solar on structures that already need to exist
Current direction: evaluate the barndominium roof, barn roof, solar carport, and porch awning for generation and shade. Size panels and storage to measured loads and the roof geometry.
Why: use roofs and parking shade for power while leaving more open ground available for food, trees, and grazing. The array layout and microgrid capacity must follow a real load study.
Planning direction · not sized
SHIFT 09
Do not count wind or micro-hydro before measuring
Current direction: study a turbine if wind data and setbacks support it. Study a small creek or stream hydro installation only if reliable flow, elevation drop, ecological review, and permitting make it worthwhile.
Why: these are site opportunities, not guaranteed generation. A small dam or a windy-looking ridge does not establish safe, dependable output.
Optional · evidence required
05 · Buildings & making
Consolidate daily work; separate hazards when needed
The building plan is becoming more flexible about where tools belong, instead of treating every activity as part of one large room.
SHIFT 10
Match each workshop to the work
Current direction: the Ground Zero barndominium can provide RV-height workshop and equipment bays as part of the basecamp. At individual homes, the preferred plan gives the metal CNC a purpose-built maker shed; a standard home can start with a three-axis-capable benchtop mill, while the user's own setup is planned around a four-axis-capable mill.
Welding, dusty work, and other higher-hazard operations should have purpose-designed separation when needed. Industrial five-axis machining stays at the shared LAVA factory rather than in every home.
Why: combine functions where that saves space, but separate tools when noise, dust, heat, ventilation, or safe operation calls for it.
Flexible standard · safety-led
06 · Choosing ground
Evaluate the land before locking the design
Location thinking has shifted from picking a compelling map point to comparing land against the systems the project depends on.
SHIFT 11
Compare terrain, water, access, and excavation history together
Current direction: investigate candidate regions and former or active excavation sites as one combined question. Compare rainfall and watershed, slope and soils, road access, utilities, restoration potential, local rules, and realistic development costs before choosing a property.
Why: a pond concept only works where the geology and catchment support it; a beautiful hillside can still be a poor or expensive site. Several regions and excavation leads are being compared; no location is selected.
Research underway · no site chosen
What the revisions taught us
Working design principles
Function before ornament
Start with shelter, water, access, food, safety, and maintainability. Add amenities when the fundamentals support them.
Use the land's shape
Put ponds, paths, buildings, trees, and collection where terrain and existing disturbance make them work.
Show the evidence level
Keep concepts distinct from calculations, field tests, and validated engineering so readers know what is proven.
REVISION 2026.10.30-01 ·
Next phase: from a homestead illustration to a testable community framework
The design now explicitly connects three scales: land restoration, a resident-owned capable home, and a community of measured shared resources. Neighborhood design explores connected pedestrian, e-bike and permitted low-speed cart routes running beside productive greenways.
Home design work examines rooftop solar, modular nonpotable rainwater docks, offline household reference material and access to safe fabrication tools. These remain proposals with engineering, costing and field-testing gates—not built features.
Read the dated community note · Draft standards · Home 001 systems