>>[1] Does that description sound about right to you?Not really, I think its less black and white - with a ton more gray areas in between.
>>[2] Is one model more "sustainable" than the other, or is it too early to tell? Put another way, is the for-profit model more sustainable because the profit motive draws in enough cash to keep going (and offers the owner incentive to keep it going), or is the not-for-profit model more sustainable because the participants are mutually committed to a shared success? I think obviously if you can strike the balance with the for-profit model and have the right people there - then it is certainly sustainable, but I think your reason for the not-for-profit being sustainable is backwards. It is going to be a small core of people that sustain the not-for-profit model - the majority of people will be freeloaders (I couldn't think of a less pejorative term to use). Not in that they are leeching off of the others for their own profit, but that they are going to be unable to contribute financially yet their community influence or skills are going to be irreplaceable. >>[3] Has anyone out there created a coworking space that you would say has split the two models down the middle, making SOME money but also actively providing support for participating coworkers by playing connector / booster? I would imagine nearly everyone in this group who runs a co-working space will say that they are walking that razor edge every day. I know that we at Gangplank do aim to make some money to support our endeavours here but it comes a distant second to growing the community in Phoenix and enriching the environment. Chris Conrey chrisconrey.com Human->Geek Relations at Integrum @conrey on Twitter On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:24 PM, jmproffitt <[email protected]> wrote: > > As we're evaluating whether/how to start a coworking office in the > Anchorage area, it strikes me that there's a spectrum of possible > approaches. > > On the one hand, there's the sort of "retail" coworking space where > people simply rent desks by the day, week, month, etc. The space is > helpful to those participating simply by being there. Camaraderie is a > welcome byproduct, but not a primary goal. This business approach is a > pure for-profit play that must make money for the owner(s) to remain > viable. > > At the other end of the spectrum is the break-even "community" > coworking space where the objective is to support independent digital > workers and even foster community amongst them. It might even be an > advocacy space that promotes the businesses that participate in the > coworking venture. In this case, the coworking space might make money, > but that's a byproduct of the venture rather than the primary goal. > > And then there's a spectrum of variations in between these two models. > > A few questions... > > > > > > > > --John > jmproffitt [at] gmail [dot] com > @jmproffitt > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
