Project 3 | Competitive Analysis

Journal Entry For
Project 3 - Competitive Analysis

Current Dwellings (Containers, RVs)

  • Unsanitary bathrooms, camp stoves, sanitation
  • Little/no insulation from weather elements
  • Electrical & security hazards

Alternate Projects

  • Prefabricated tiny homes offer generic designs and lack community integration, taking 10-12 months to complete at high cost ($650-680+/ft^2)
  • Ground-up multifamily projects take 4 years to build and many lack sustainable features since they are built to maximize return on investment ($550/ft^2)


  • Space optimized and designed bespoke for rural use ($357/ft^2)
  • Easily buildable by community members using locally sourced materials like TetraPak bricks and cork
  • Converts sunlight to electricity via south-facing solar roof; illuminates living room yet shades bedroom for peaceful sleep
  • Thoughtful technology integration: efficient heat pump heating, power sharing micro-grid & community grey-water processing

Competitive Analysis

  • Our project
    • Budget
      • HMB Budget: $5M (28 houses)
      • Budget per house: $178.571
    • Sustainability
      • Heat pump vs (AC)
      • Electronic carport vs (Normal cars)
  1. Picnic Tables:

Need in total 213 low-income houses




Living/specific features:

  • Competitor: Moonridge by non-profit Mid-Pen
    • Price: Undisclosed
    • Size: >500sf
    • Living/specific features:
      • Don’t seem to by tiny houses,
      • Buildings in clusters gives Moonridge the feel of a small town
      • Community garden, computer center by Intel
      • Classes provided by the College of San Mateo and early childhood development services from Head Start
  • Competitor: Main Street park by non-profit Mid-Pen
    • Price: Undisclosed
    • Size: >500sf
    • Living/specific features
      • At the center of the site is a small public park with a play structure and open space
      • Adjacent to the park is the community building, computer center, and management office.
  • Competitor: Mercy Housing (is in early stage planning for developing a project in 555 Kelley st. in HMB)

There isn’t much about the project itself, but from analyzing their website and developments, it’s possible to conclude that they are experienced developers not focused in tiny houses. They have committed to adhere to sustainability standards in their projects.

Green Hope, their environmental sustainability program. This initiative was designed to reduce our consumption of natural resources, reduce our waste, and create healthier living environments. Actions:

  • Water conservation upgrades, including the installation of faucet aerators, low flow showerheads, toilet flappers and diverters, and low and ultralow flow toilets
  • Energy efficiency upgrades such as lighting, insulation, air sealing, efficient space and hot water heating systems, and boiler controls
  • Solar electric and solar hot water heating
  • Measuring utility use at all properties
  • Operation-wide purchasing standards (such as floor covering, water fixtures, lighting, and other items) that include minimum environmental threshold requirements
  • Built and retrofitted existing buildings to external standards such as LEED, Evergreen Standards, Enterprise Green Communities Criteria, and other local environmental standards
  • Competitor: Abodu -
    • Price: $228.000 - $439.000
    • Size: 350 - 800 sf
    • Living/specific features
      • Well designed
      • Delivered ready (no construction on site)
      • No mentions to recirculation systems or green energy sources.

Focus in ADUs and their selling point is not affordability

  • Competitor: Clever tiny homes -
    • Price: $54.995
    • Size: 28’x 8.5’
    • Living/specific features
      • Reconfigurable spaces
      • well-designed and high-end materials
      • large windows and tall ceiling
      • No mentions to recirculation systems or green energy sources. Delivered ready and furnished.
  • Competitor: Minimaliste -
    • Price: $37.500 - $158.000
    • Size: –
    • Living/specific features
      • On wheels, multiple models
      • No mentions to recirculation systems or green energy sources.
  • Competitor: Samara -
    • Price: $289.000+
    • Size: 420 - 690 sf
    • Living/specific features
      • Solar by default
      • Airy cathedral ceilings
      • High-end focus.
  • Competitor: Mint tiny house -
    • Price: $88.000 - $115.000
    • Size: 380 - 400 sf
    • Living/specific features:
      • On wheels, multiple models.
      • No mentions to recirculation systems or green energy sources.



Heat pump


No garbage collection

Similar projects

Broader community integration

Sustainability focus

Hyper affordability

Tiny homes

Sustainability Analysis

  • Farming
    • Systems to manage rich soil
      • Censors

  • Sustainable housing
    • Solar roofs
    • sustainable materials

No ownership over land

Shared resources coordinated (food, tools, tractor)

Very crowded

big rooms like a warehouse, that has beds for people to sleep, and they usually bunk beds, not a lot of privacy

dangerous electrical problem

People cooking outside

Shared bathrooms/showers

The farmworkers need to be convinced that they can actually manage one acre of land. and they can make a better living, better income than working for somebody else.

Containers can’t scape easily