...but this is what they are. The designer's focused on speed of construction, better-than-tent level protection from the elements, and some security. They are not intended to be permanent housing. Amenities are very barebones, so you'll need to bring your own sleeping bag.

The designer is very into very small living spaces, and has lived, and may still live, in one of these with his wife and at least some progeny. He's put a lot of thought and practice into this design and into living in very small spaces, and these huts are, imo, impressive from a structure and design perspective given their limited objectives. He also is an advocate for intentional community, which isn't necessarily the same thing as placing huts like these somewhere and saying "Come on!" to all homeless people alike.

It should go without saying (but it doesn't), and it should be obvious (but I promise you it won't be) that if your policy is simply to build a bunch of these (or something much like them) and tolerate substance abuse and concomitant aberrant and predatory behavior to run unchecked within whatever project you put into play, then your efforts will lead to awfulness of kinds we've seen before (but don't seem to learn from) and so your efforts will fail (which will be par for the course). What I'm trying to say, you see, is, if you don't provide appropriate services and for public safety, making little hut villages for the homeless would be just like Blackstock, but with huts that would let you pat yourself on the back and say, "Look! We gave them huts in little villages!" But please don't call me a cynic, or worse. I've recently been shaped by a fairly rough year.