So I think the reality of these schemes is often...difficult because they are a non-ideal solution to a non-ideal problem (and unf, the alternative in the UK is sheltered housing with huge levels of crime, B&B which cost taxpayers £150-200/day, or council housing that is worth £500k-1m...again, there are no real solutions here).
EDIT: btw, I should add...I have actually lived in a shipping container, I went to a boarding school and part of the school was being re-developed so a small number of proportion of the group had to spend a term in converted containers...no issue. It was totally fine. These kind of housing solutions are used pretty extensively in mining/oil and gas, and they are quite comfortable.
Although they are obviously not spacious mansions, they can be highly functional and comfortable, and obviously WAAAY better than nothing.
If I were in a situation where it was that or nothing, I'd be grateful for a small spot to call home (but then I decided to live for one summer job in a tent in a secluded spot outside of town instead of getting an apartment, and it was very enjoyable and functional).
Simply providing someone a home and trying to stuff them in there is only a minuscule part of the overall issue.
1: https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/tiny-home-pods-help-p...
It's been shown that the best solution for many (non-mentally-ill) homeless is to literally provide a home. E.g., merely the fact of falling on enough hardships to lose a home and having no fixed address is a major impediment to getting a new job and becoming a homed, taxpaying resident.
Yet I've read repeatedly that California is spending net $1 million per home to create low-standard living spaces for the homeless. This is more than a 10X improvement in these costs.