Breaking up is so hard to do - it's not you it's me

[Benjamin Blundell]

tl;dr I will vote for whichever trustees pledges to break up the space, moving to separate premises, separate lists and IRC channels.

I've given up my box, I pay the minimum, I stopped being a laser maintainer, I no longer work on any projects in the space. And I'm not the only one.

I've been involved in the space since the archery range and I've helped the place grow. That feeling was a massive driver. I benefited, and the space benefited. We had our time together and it wsa glorious!

I've seen the place change and I've changed. I'm happy that we've offered a place for so many people to come together and do things. But what I'm seeing now I don't like, and I'm not the only one.

Many of the problems I've noticed cannot be solved by technology, or rules or anything along these lines. The best solution, it seems to me, is to breakup the space into smaller places. Dunbar's number is the simplest way to explain this. I do not feel connected to the people in the space anymore. Again, I'm not the only one.

I suspect soon we won't have a choice in the matter. Rents are going up and there is a chance we may not get to keep the space we are in. Why not seize control of this and make it an opportunity? I feel we would all feel much better as a result.

I'd propose a series of site searches, selected a number of good sites  > 1 in the first instance.

Thoughts?

B

 

[Russ Garrett]

On 10 November 2016 at 09:38, Benjamin Blundell <onid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tl;dr I will vote for whichever trustees pledges to break up the space,
> moving to separate premises, separate lists and IRC channels.

In my opinion, it's not the trustees' job to split up the space. It's
going to be a decent amount of work just to find one new space, and
the trustees should concentrate on that. It's not fair to make the
trustees' already busy job even busier by making them manage multiple
spaces. There is an upper limit to what volunteers can do.

The new space will have to be smaller, or further away from central
London, and it's likely that will cause some membership dropoff. So
the trustees will have to bear that in mind. Some of the equipment may
have to be donated to other spaces.

I've always said that London should have a number of spaces, but those
spaces need to be run by their own independent organisations. I am, as
ever, always willing to help get those organisations started - this is
part of why I'm standing down as a trustee this year.

Cheers,

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Simon Howes]

If we're going to go down this route I think what is needed is a frank discussion of what worked and what didn't.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Benjamin Blundell]

To clarify, I agree that it would be too much work for trustees to manage separate spaces.

However people listen to the trustees and if the message comes from them that new places (plural) need to be found and setup, people who are not trustees would likely rally to that cause (case in point being you Russ)

I think it's better put this way - that new trustees will need to have in the back of their minds that one space where it is will not last and be prepared for moving and splitting and be gearing up for that.

It maybe this is already the case with the trustees, in which case great! However, I felt it time to voice this out-loud in case it wasn't.

B

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Tom Newsom]

I strongly support this point of view. London is a huge city and can support many hackspaces. Having one central location makes it hard to get to for a lot of people so we set up SLMS in Herne Hill for exactly this reason, and we regularly talk about what we will do once we get "too big".

This is well worth discussing now, and not in a panic next year when the lease runs out.

I agree with Russ that it's not the Trustees' job to set up new spaces, but they will have to play a critical part in managing members' expectations in the event of a split.

[Billy]

Sadly, Oni, i think you're right.

And we should have been having this sort of conversation a few years ago.

I was going to try for a Trustee post, but building a new hackspace seems like a more useful channel for my energy.

If anyone is interested in building one in East London, give me a shout.

[Toria]

How about, a collective of London hackspaces with a collective membership?
I do like the simplicity of having everything in one place for having a sudden idea and grabbing the kit, but the journey is a slog.

[Adrian Godwin]

It's attractive, but how do you fund it ?

Each has costs that they can just sustain. Do members pay only one membership and get access to all ?
Or have to pay all memberships ?
If they pay only one, how is the income shared out ?

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Toria <tor...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about, a collective of London hackspaces with a collective membership?
I do like the simplicity of having everything in one place for having a sudden idea and grabbing the kit, but the journey is a slog.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

The idea has been addressed before. The unsolved issue is what happens
about spaces that take a disproportionate amount of funding.

EG; if all the spaces have roughly the same membership and costs, it's
fine. But if one has lower attendance than the rest, it's a burden
compared to the others. You end up in a cycle that will pressure smaller
ones to shut down and be absorbed, leading back to a single hackspace again.

If we're wildly brainstorming, would a franchise system work? Or an
associated membership where those signed up at a different venue pay
extra to use other ones but still have access?

[Benjamin Blundell]

Billy, yes I do find it sad sometimes, but I think accepting it and taking charge of this as an opportunity to make things better is the way to go :) Positive right?

Sci, I think brainstorming is a good idea but if it were me, I'd actually keep it extremely simple and lay out very easy ground rules. Something along the lines of - all spaces can run how they like, independently with, for example, spacenet access and a tuesday night open night where non members are allowed, and just leave it at that. We sort of already have this with south london makerspace and similar.

My thinking is that the difficulty will be in the division initially, regarding kit and the like, but once that is overcome, each space will likely have a unique set of benefits and draw-backs and I could see, for example, people joining 2 out of the 4 new spaces (for example). Over time, this might result in some of these spaces deciding to adopt a federated system.

tl;dr a simple solution with few initial conditions sets fertile ground for an organic evolution of hackspaces.

[Michal Stefanow (genesis.re)]

I'm missing essential context for this discussion --> are there announcements about increased rent / splitting up the space? (please share a link to discussion page)

It's counterintuitive, after all Raspberry Pi was created to generate massive interest in computing / making.

Being hacker / maker is the new hip --> I cannot believe membership numbers are going down?

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:38:55 AM UTC, Oni wrote:

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

See the accounts thread. The space will not be able to renew the current
lease at the end of next year. Rates will also greatly increase and
there are low odds of getting another physical venue this size.

This thread is more about the social environment of the space and that
it is too large to be sustained with the feeling/ethos of a hackerspace.
Older members want that Cheers "where everybody knows your name" feeling
back, which works well with the self-driven anarchic principle of
operation. A principle which does not seem to scale with membership numbers.

Personally I do not think the hackspace is sustainable at current
membership numbers with the existing management structure. It's large
enough that people fill the perceived power vacuums and find themselves
at odds with the otherwise hands-off directorship.

The sustainable options are either to remain a monolithic entity but
with greater official delegation of management to maintain coherence
across the larger user base, or to divide into a number of smaller
spaces with lower membership that can remain operating under casual
guidance. I don't see any other options. Remaining as-is in a new venue
will only increase the unpleasant atmosphere until things suddenly collapse.

[Adrian Godwin]

While I agree with what you say, I don't think we should easily accept the idea of filling power vacuums. They are not power vacuums. They are free spaces. People who perceive them as vacuums and want to fill them are doing it wrong and should be educated or ejected. We don't want their kind : this is a community, not a hierarchy.

[Michal Stefanow (genesis.re)]

Accounts thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/london-hack-space/accounts|sort:relevance/london-hack-space/LDzl5Bja9D4/67DMWAxNAwAJ

Healthy cash reserves, healthy profit.

> from April 2017 we will be paying more than double the business rates we currently pay

Councils do have the power to discount business rates relief by up to 
100% for non-profits, however it's very difficult to extract this 
discount from London borough councils because they want you to prove 
that you primarily benefit *their* residents (which is quite silly). 
It may still be worth attempting this again given the sheer amount 
we'll be paying in business rates. 

Problem ---> Solution.

They want us to provide services that benefit their residents ---> consider it done.

Here is an idea of helping homeless ---> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LznDZqb-FniryXHcrOc9EuJJibhEYp9OlUZjJxALPqM/edit?usp=sharing (instead of giving £2 / warm coat / packed lunch that doesn't change anything in the long run ---> raise £200 and reboot a single life in a week)

Here is yet another idea of 1 day intensive web development workshop ---> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hwtt3zIKEPq7uAapmJ-YX7XmwWoPyZnkWDvSg9SOu4c/edit (it might be old, outdates, it was sitting in my GoogleDocs for ages, I'm just giving you an idea) 

Now I'll cross-post these links to the actual accounts thread for better visibility.

[Ben Clifford]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Michal Stefanow (genesis.re) wrote:

> Here is an idea of helping homeless --->
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LznDZqb-FniryXHcrOc9EuJJibhEYp9OlUZjJxALPqM/edit?usp=sharing (instead of

> giving ?2/ warm coat / packed lunch that doesn't change anything in the long run ---> raise ?200 and reboot a

> single life in a week)

If you're serious about this, consider doing a week of shifts here:

http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/activity-leader-it.html

It's not the same as what you propose but related, and in a well
established charity with plenty of support and existing experience.

--

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

I think we might be using the term differently. Whether it's a free
space or a power vacuum, it's a social environment where there is a
conspicuous absence of guidance. The larger the population, the more
people like to be able to look to someone representative for guidance or
direction. Without persons to act as a representative the alternative is
either checking with all those who may be affected individually (and the
long road of compromise & obstruction that entails), or just wilfully
ignoring all the potential conflicts.

I'm not a sociologist, but I suspect this is why it happens. Someone
else already mentioned the Dunbars Number concept.

To me this is a big issue with the hackspace. We're long past the point
of people just knowing what's going on around the space, and so being
able to just know who to talk to or what can be done. That was why
directed chaos worked when the space was small. Now it's much larger,
people unofficially filling the role of community representatives find
their intent conflicts with the anarchic ideal.

I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way. It is a little
difficult to express though.

On 12/11/2016 19:18, Adrian Godwin wrote:
> While I agree with what you say, I don't think we should easily accept
> the idea of filling power vacuums. They are not power vacuums. They are
> free spaces. People who perceive them as vacuums and want to fill them
> are doing it wrong and should be educated or ejected. We don't want
> their kind : this is a community, not a hierarchy.
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2016 18:33, "Peter "Sci" Turpin" <s...@sci-fi-fox.com

[Michal Stefanow (genesis.re)]

Amazing idea! Thank you for sharing!

Too bad I have other plans for Xmas and otherwise "We have no roles currently" even for vulunters! (it only means that there are so many people willing to help, I should have a chat with them anyway)

Funny fact about me - my first registered address in the UK was registered at Crisis. I was squatting at that time - https://www.instagram.com/p/7Q9pHyFUQJ/?taken-by=stefek99 - one day I had £1.27 on me and I thought it would be totally absurd to buy a wallet / piggybank with the last money. Luckily the poundland was closed so I got some food instead.

*******

Right now I'm making slides for "Capsule Hostel For Hackers"

50 projects in 50 days, 10 are already online: http://RNSSNC.com

(the capsule hostel is inspired by the situation at Hackspace, if there are going to be new premises we can ensure the right licensing or just fly under the radar)

[Benjamin Blundell]

Whilst it is a little off-topic, I can also recommend Crisis at Christmas.

Sci, yeah it is difficult to explain; it covers a lot of bases and its tricky to see when you in inside it sometimes I've found.

--

[Adrian Godwin]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Michal Stefanow (genesis.re) <em...@genesis.re> wrote:

Right now I'm making slides for "Capsule Hostel For Hackers"

50 projects in 50 days, 10 are already online: http://RNSSNC.com

(the capsule hostel is inspired by the situation at Hackspace, if there are going to be new premises we can ensure the right licensing or just fly under the radar)

Although it's not generally possible to offer accommodation in commercial workshop premises, it's not the only barrier to permitting people to sleep or even live at the hackspace.

We did once permit overnight stays, but it was abused and overused : the result was that the hackspace became unpleasant to use for hacking due to an excess of sleepers. There were problems with cleanliness, availability of space, lack of cooperation between those who wanted to sleep and those who wanted to hack.

Obviously, since it's a hackspace, these had to be resolved in favour of hacking.

Note that sleeping in the space is also in the hackspace antipatterns : other hackspaces have found it incompatible. 

I wouldn't say it's impossible. But if you have a proposal, it would need to include methods to overcome these problems and also persuade other members that the previous situation would not occur again.

I feel this would probably require a separate location, paid for by those who used it and not requiring subsidies by non-users. I'm not sure this is any different to a hostel, of which several already exist. But perhaps you have a better idea.

[Yvan Janssens]

Regarding accommodation, I've seen success stories, and failures, but the general trend for this is failure. If it grows organically, it'll fail with almost full certainty - all the hack(er)spaces I know or have been have had the same issues with people sleeping over. The anti-pattern is similar everywhere; it starts out harmless, with people hacking together, then realising it's past <last-train-departure>'o clock, and just decide to sleep on the couch and leave in the morning. At this point, most members don't have a problem with that, and that's what most people would tolerate. However, quickly you'll end up with boundary pushing and slack, and it'll become a congestion point and most places decide that it's a better idea to not allow any sleep.

I've also seen one success story myself - at the previous location of the Brussels hackspace, they had a small studio-like area on the top floor, which had a small bathroom and a bedroom. People could make use of that by asking to be able to stay there on the mailing list, and it worked fairly well for them - there have been cases of people visiting from abroad staying there, members needing a temporary place to stay, etc.. The key thing which made this work was a well designed framework with clear rules from the start, instead of this growing organically. The other thing which made it work is that it was a relatively "small" space (not thousands or even hundreds of members), so everybody knew each other's face (and mostly) names. In such an environment this could work. I've also seen success stories of hack(er)bases, but then again, the key differentiator with most sleeping-in-the-space situations is a clear framework/agreement from the start on.

Regarding splitting the space/federation; in BE we have/had a system working similar like that. However, the way it was organised wouldn't scale, since, well, Belgium's a small country. Most spaces operating on a monthly fee of around 10 euros at the time I was still living there, and spaces tended to organise workshops/events. Those events/workshops were freely accessible to members (as was the space when it was open; there aren't much 24/7 places around due to restrictions). However, an informal agreement existed between spaces that if you were a paid-up member at a different space, this fee (usually five euros) would be waived for the workshop. Since most spaces in BE didn't have a 24/7-model for members, it was slightly easier to do informal federation - spaces had fixed opening days and times, and one of those moments was like our Tuesday evenings, and if you showed up as a member from a different space on a non-open day, people would just let you in and hack along. Resource usage wasn't really an issue, mainly due to it being a small and closely knit community, as well as just not having very much to share - when this system was operated, 3D printers were barely accessible, and lasercutters were a thing of the future and something we gazed on at the manufacturers' website. 

So; long story short, yes, those models could work, and I've seen it work, but I think it would be fairly hard to pull it off. I don't think federation would help us in the near future, but I do think we should split the space.

Also, on a misc side-note, I suspect that if we split the space, informal federation will automatically happen. You might be a paid-up member in "Seven Sisters Hackspace", but if you walk in to the "Shepherds' Bush Hackspace" it's not unlikely that people would recognise your face and just let you in. After all, even though we are dealing with the economics of scale in London, most things in the scene are still operated by a closely related core group, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Just my 2p.

/y

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[David Murphy]

I think the big problem with splitting the space up is that there's a core group who maintain the space and a lot of those people are friends and enjoy each others company. 

If you split the space up then people will still want to hang out with their friends.

Inevitably one wing of the space will get a slight majority of those core people or they'll get a few of the most fun people and those core members in the other half are likely to drift towards the space that has more of their friends. This compounds until you again have 1 large space and perhaps a small one with a strong social split with the remaining people being a group who are friends with each other more than with those at the other space.

It's a social problem and not just a logistical one. It's a hard hard problem. Nowhere near as simple as just splitting resources across a couple of buildings and spawning a second ltd company with it's own board.

I've been feeling the same apathy you describe lately but I don't think it's so much the space as me: after almost 5 years it's hard to stay as excited about the space as I used to be, I'm putting it down to a natural progression that isn't so much about the space changing as about me changing. .

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Dent]

I agree that splitting up the space is a stupid idea. The number I've times I've been inspired by people working in different disciplines in one place simply wouldn't happen in smaller, dedicated spaces. Also, I'm turning into a bit of a multi-disciplinary hacker myself and can't imagine traipsing about London between multiple facilities for different purposes.

[Alex McConnachie]

If i may put in my 2 cents, all the people who are talking about this  'unpleasant environment' where nobody knows each other aren't people I recognise by sight and I've been a regular for two and a half years. Seeing as I come in so much I do know a whole bunch of people when I come in and there is almost the feeling that everybody knows everybody. Of course there will be those people who want to sit in the corner and not socialise but its our job as an inclusive space to accept those sorts too.

I guess seeing as over 5 years have passed, the member count has increased, but so have the number of hackerspaces, along with the interest in the movement, they are bound to change in nature.

Also (I know wrong thread but...) If the council wants us to prove that it benefits its residents, then why not set up a group for Tower Hamlets residents (which includes myself) to write a letter of support for the hackspace. I think we should urgently see what is entailed and apply for business rate reductions once again.

With regards to splitting up the space, I'd be for it if we had two of everything and enough helpful people to sustain two places then I'd be all for it, but we're not seeing as half the machines are always down and instead of spending time training people as maintainers for machines, we're all spending time clearing junk and emptying bins.

What I would be in favour of if there is another hackerspace created in addition to this one is some way of uniting this and the various other hakerspaces like SLMS and Createspace into a sort of multi-space membership scheme. The logistics of which are obviously a nightmare but it might become something to think about when there are more than 5 or 10 makerspaces in the city.

[Tom Newsom]

It's not just a social challenge that LHS faces, but a financial one too.

LHS currently pays £85,000pa in rent, or ~£13/ft² (based on the 6500ft² figure from the wiki)

Unless there's an unusual arrangement, this will include VAT.

Compared to the local area, this is an absurdly good deal. Up the road at Cambridge Heath, you can expect to pay £35/ft² *plus* VAT for a similar on-street industrial space. More than 3x the price. To get the price back down, you need to go further out of London to an industrial estate in Walthamstow, Woodford or Wembley. What would the greater inconvenience of these far-out places do to the membership?

Plan B: Hike the average membership contribution by 3x. It's currently just over £10. Yikes.

Plan C: Strike a middle ground. Don't move as far, but make a more realistic increase in fees to £20. This is our "standard" payment at SLMS, with discounts readily available for low income/unemployed people. As we look to our own future and a potential move (our railway arch is always under silent threat of Network Rail's lumbering gentrification programme), we find that £20/month/person is about what it takes to afford a decently-sized and well-located property.

However, such properties that meet LHS's current space demands are very few and far between. See for yourself. Smaller spaces are more available and more centrally located.

My conclusion: Increase rates to £20. Split into 2 or 3 smaller groups. The current situation is not sustainable, and attempting business as usual will result the unorderly demise of LHS.

[Russ Garrett]

For the record, from an accounting/property perspective, Tom's
assumptions are pretty much spot on.

Russ

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "London Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

> email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Ian Lowe]

Hi guys

I think Haringey council (www.haringey.gov.uk)  charge about £10 to £15 per square foot for their Industrial units, you can contact them for an available properties list, but here's what I found:

 http://www.haringey.gov.uk/business/available-properties/commercial-properties-let

I know they have some industrial units out near Tottenham way of about 2/2500sq ft and another place thats up  for community use that's pretty big, its set inside a park in Wood Green and called Wolves Lane Horticultural Centre  They're after proposals for it's use now as the council can't afford to run it as is any more.  It's a pretty decent sized space, maybe not quite as big as the current one but still might be worth a look as you can likely tick the boxes the council are after..

Is Haringey too far out of the centre of London for folks?

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

I don't think the Horticultural Centre is suitable as a hackspace since
it's entirely greenhouses. Probably of more use to urban agriculture groups.

Also remember the wiki lists our current venue as 6500sq/ft for
comparison. I don't know if that number includes the yard space, but the
largest size listed on that link isn't even half the size of the current
venue.

It's also probably worth seeing what the penalty is for ending our
current lease early if we needed to move quickly on something. I seem to
recall that last move the idea of paying rent on two places at the same
time wasn't affordable so we were also limited by properties that would
be available as close as possible to the end of our lease.

(in other words, if we found somewhere perfect right now we probably
couldn't go for it anyway)

On 14/11/2016 14:14, Ian Lowe wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> I think Haringey council (www.haringey.gov.uk

> <http://www.haringey.gov.uk>) charge about £10 to £15 per square foot

> for their Industrial units, you can contact them for an available
> properties list, but here's what I found:
>
> http://www.haringey.gov.uk/business/available-properties/commercial-properties-let
>
> I know they have some industrial units out near Tottenham way of about
> 2/2500sq ft and another place thats up for community use that's pretty
> big, its set inside a park in Wood Green and called Wolves Lane
> Horticultural Centre They're after proposals for it's use now as the
> council can't afford to run it as is any more. It's a pretty decent
> sized space, maybe not quite as big as the current one but still might
> be worth a look as you can likely tick the boxes the council are after..
>
> Is Haringey too far out of the centre of London for folks?
>
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 13:20:35 UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:
>
> For the record, from an accounting/property perspective, Tom's
> assumptions are pretty much spot on.
>
> Russ
>
> On 14 November 2016 at 13:15, Tom Newsom <tom.n...@gmail.com

> > email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout

> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>
>
>
> --
> Russ Garrett
> ru...@garrett.co.uk <javascript:>

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "London Hackspace" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>.

[Tom Newsom]

The 6500 figure does not include the yard.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 18:00:20 UTC, Sci wrote:

Also remember the wiki lists our current venue as 6500sq/ft for
comparison. I don't know if that number includes the yard space, but the
largest size listed on that link isn't even half the size of the current
venue.

 

The 6500 figure does not include the yard.

 

if we found somewhere perfect right now we probably 
couldn't go for it anyway 

 

I agree, a detailed proeprty search is premature, but there is plenty that can be done ahead of time.

Assess the *kinds* of properties that are available, their sizes and locations.

Pick 2 or three neighbourhoods that seem to offer a choice of spaces.

Get feedback on how many people are in favour of each one; will they have a good "catchment area?"

Think about how the spoils of LHS are divided. Does LHS continue and the other space(s) run as offshoots?

Or would it be better to make a clean break, with LHS dispersing their property to new companies?

The new space(s) can hit the ground running if some preparation is made: Companies formed, members registered, funds allocated, equipment spoken for. Lots to do. 15 months (max) to do it.

This isn't the only way forward, but I think it's got the best chance of working.

[Billy]

While we're talking about splitting the equipment, we should maybe set things up so each of the subsidiary hackspaces has the same initial toolset. This would also allow us to continue getting the bulk discounts for the consumables.

We could get volunteers for the post of equipment maintainers for each of the new hackspaces, and prioritise maintainer training for them.

Then they can act as the trainers for the new hackspaces.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

> I agree, a detailed proeprty search is premature, but there is plenty
> that can be done ahead of time.
> Assess the *kinds* of properties that are available, their sizes and
> locations.
> Pick 2 or three neighbourhoods that seem to offer a choice of spaces.
> Get feedback on how many people are in favour of each one; will they
> have a good "catchment area?"
> Think about how the spoils of LHS are divided. Does LHS continue and the
> other space(s) run as offshoots?
> Or would it be better to make a clean break, with LHS dispersing their
> property to new companies?
>
> The new space(s) can hit the ground running if some preparation is made:
> Companies formed, members registered, funds allocated, equipment spoken
> for. Lots to do. 15 months (max) to do it.
>
> This isn't the only way forward, but I think it's got the best chance of
> working.

I'm remembering an idea that was thrown around I think when we were last
worried about not getting the lease renewed. I think one of the backup
venue options was a basically a former service-centre for trucks; a huge
open-plan industrial unit with no insulation or facility for habitation.
The resulting idea was fitting it out with shipping containers or
portacabins to subdivide it.

As time goes on, more industrial properties in London are being
converted into housing (as I believe is the landlords plan for our
current venue), so we're likely to have less light-industrial properties
available each time we move. It occurs to me though that open-plan
properties like those steel-frame industrial units are a lot harder to
convert to housing so will probably remain available longer.

There's some appeal to the idea of spending time over the next year
fitting out portable rooms to be installed in whatever open-plan space
is found available. Done correctly it could also greatly simplify
division of equipment if the LHS does divide. Downside is the additional
outlay in materials and work would be a little higher than fitting out a
new venue directly, plus the extra transport costs. Also, if shipping
containers were used for example, the floor space in a 20ft container is
only 150sq/ft, 305sq/ft for a 40ft. And I suspect 20ft containers would
be both easier to work on and to move.

It's far from perfect as it seems we'd need forty-three 20ft containers
to match the current 6500sq/ft of the current venue? I don't know sizes
& availabilities of portacabins for comparison. Doing it beforehand
would also mean committing to an open-plan venue next.

[Tom Newsom]

Shipping containers are just too narrow for working in. If you want to work on anything longer than 8ft, you have to take it outside if you want to turn it around. Also, you'd never be able to transport a "full" one without everything inside it falling over and breaking during transit.

If an empty shed really is the only available property, it would probably be easier to just build timber-framed enclosures inside it as needed.

[Stefan Sabo]

@sci

Idea to move to hard industrial open plane warehouse or similar venue is one of the best option, which I heard within discussion about ongoing move of LHS

DIVIDE space with shipping containers could be absolutely amazing and left space as unique.

Also, this spaces could be more cheapest for rent, but more expensive to heat up it.
Standard there is keep temperature at minimum level, which is no problem for warehouse.

In case as space is very big, and position stay close to central, it could be nice idea take inspiration from formerly Create Space Wembley, which make significant amount of necessary money with rent "semi private studio spaces" I believe as we could have also minimum up to 10 members, who invite idea as they could have their semi private space, where could keep their belongings without aware of obvious problems.
If this "studios" will be inside shipping containers, may be at "first floor level", it could be not take floor of space and produce additional money to afford rent.

If you give it by 200-250 quids per month, you found people who take it and you have simply money to rent.

Only problem will as it could be easily taken wrong and convert to cheap accommodation.

Idea to split LHS to more them one venue is wrong for me. Simply because lot of administration and more expensive than one venue.

[Aden]

In the rare occasion that anyone needs to work on anything more than 8ft long they can do it outside of the container.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Tom Newsom <tom.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

Shipping containers are just too narrow for working in. If you want to work on anything longer than 8ft, you have to take it outside if you want to turn it around. Also, you'd never be able to transport a "full" one without everything inside it falling over and breaking during transit.

If an empty shed really is the only available property, it would probably be easier to just build timber-framed enclosures inside it as needed.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Tim Reynolds]

Please actualy read the thread. There are financial problems on the
horizon and LHS staying as it is seems unlikely.

[Tim Reynolds]

Please actualy read the thread. There are financial problems on the
horizon and LHS staying as it is seems unlikely.

[Tom Newsom]

I suggest that "big shedists" take a look at the available properties which fit the current budget and space requirements, and then ask themselves if these locations would be suitable for the majority of members.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/map/industrial-sites/london/?floor_area_max=7500&floor_area_min=5000&floor_area_units=sq_feet&price_frequency=per_year&price_max=80000&price_min=10000&q=london&results_sort=lowest_price&search_source=to-rent&pn=1&view_type=map

(note that the marker very near to the curernt space is an aberration - it's a variable-area property so the search includes it at the cheap end of the scale. In actuality, it's the 3x as expensive option that I mentioned upthread)

The only property inside the North Circular is at the arse end of a massive industrial estate in Walthamstow. Welcome to London Hackspace!

10 minute walk to Lea bridge for half-hourly trains to Stratford. 20 minute walk to St James Street for quarter-hourly trains to Liverpool St.

Membership numbers will not be maintained at such a location. Also, good luck convincing the landlord that you need to issue 1,200 copies of the estate gate key!

---

"Pro" memberships, however, are a great idea for raising extra cash.

[Alex McConnachie]

I'm suprised nobody's mentioned it... but what about introducing a separate area for hot-desking for startups? If we had like 12 desks we could charge 200 each for them, which is well under the market rate.

A lot of the more 'professional' hackerspaces do it, and this is also how Lamba Labs in Beirut works. A lot of people use the hackspace like hot-desks anyway so why not capitalise a bit more off it?

Its obviously going to be a bit controversial for some, and not implementable in the current space as we are moving so soon, but could really add up to some extra income. We could do it in such a way that the hot-desk area is a separate room that is cleaned a bit more often and also renovated a bit more than the rest of the space, so as to encourage people to part with the extra cash.

[Tom Sands]

The hackspace is going to split, shrink, and move, anyone that doesn't believe this needs to get their head out of the sand and start activly prepairing for it. It takes years to set up alternative stable hackspaces and arguing about whether or not things are going to happen is a waste of time.

It is not just the trustee's job to sort this out. The whole membership is responsible.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

I'd disagree on the transport point. That's all a matter of how securely
it's fitted out. Most of our equipment is built with bolt-down points.

The problem with fitting-out in-situ is security and usability lag-time.
Without a large overlap in rents, we'd be moving all the hackspace
belongings to the new venue, then fitting it out. That will be more
disruptive to do in a "shed" than it was to in our current premises. The
initial open-plan layout may also see things going missing during build-out.

[Calum Nicoll]

I think the whole 'it's not like the good old days' is mostly wrong- everyone without fail has been friendly and helpful and there is still a community feel, if you actually go.

I am highly in favour in keeping it in a central location in one space.  

On locations - I think the shipping containers is a good one.  Not for easy of transport but for cost.

SOmething like http://www.movehut.co.uk/property/322477-storage-yard-the-oval--hackney-road-london-/?k=4 would offer the same space as hacksapce if outfitted with shipping containers, rent of 15k p/a.  I reckon you could get 40' ex-shipping containers for 2k each.  Maybe 20 would be enough, though you could stack them if neccessary.  The whole outlay would be about 80k for the first year then much less for the next few.

Heating and that would be expensive but we can spend 10k of the surplus on buying jumpers.

On Thursday, 10 November 2016 09:38:55 UTC, Oni wrote:

tl;dr I will vote for whichever trustees pledges to break up the space, moving to separate premises, separate lists and IRC channels.

I've given up my box, I pay the minimum, I stopped being a laser maintainer, I no longer work on any projects in the space. And I'm not the only one.

I've been involved in the space since the archery range and I've helped the place grow. That feeling was a massive driver. I benefited, and the space benefited. We had our time together and it wsa glorious!

I've seen the place change and I've changed. I'm happy that we've offered a place for so many people to come together and do things. But what I'm seeing now I don't like, and I'm not the only one.

Many of the problems I've noticed cannot be solved by technology, or rules or anything along these lines. The best solution, it seems to me, is to breakup the space into smaller places. Dunbar's number is the simplest way to explain this. I do not feel connected to the people in the space anymore. Again, I'm not the only one.

I suspect soon we won't have a choice in the matter. Rents are going up and there is a chance we may not get to keep the space we are in. Why not seize control of this and make it an opportunity? I feel we would all feel much better as a result.

I'd propose a series of site searches, selected a number of good sites  > 1 in the first instance.

Thoughts?

B

 

[Tim Reynolds]

Could we start some kind of new thread for fantasy boxpark construction? We can't get people to empty bins or wash up mugs let alone construct a modular hackspace of dreams. The space can't afford to stay where it is or move in one piece. I know it isn't a good situation to be in, but this is not helping. Sticking to reality might actually get us somewhere.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Calum Nicoll]

Or more conventional but still cheap - http://www.movehut.co.uk/property/411800/?k=5

[Stefan Sabo]

Dne čtvrtek 17. listopadu 2016 15:28:24 UTC Tom Sands napsal(a):

> The hackspace is going to split, shrink, and move, anyone that doesn't believe this needs to get their head out of the sand and start activly prepairing for it. It takes years to set up alternative stable hackspaces and arguing about whether or not things are going to happen is a waste of time.
>
> It is not just the trustee's job to sort this out. The whole membership is responsible.
>
> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 13:45:45 UTC, Tom Newsom wrote:
> I suggest that "big shedists" take a look at the available properties which fit the current budget and space requirements, and then ask themselves if these locations would be suitable for the majority of members.
>
>
> http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/map/industrial-sites/london/?floor_area_max=7500&floor_area_min=5000&floor_area_units=sq_feet&price_frequency=per_year&price_max=80000&price_min=10000&q=london&results_sort=lowest_price&search_source=to-rent&pn=1&view_type=map
>
>
> (note that the marker very near to the curernt space is an aberration - it's a variable-area property so the search includes it at the cheap end of the scale. In actuality, it's the 3x as expensive option that I mentioned upthread)
>
>
> The only property inside the North Circular is at the arse end of a massive industrial estate in Walthamstow. Welcome to London Hackspace!
> 10 minute walk to Lea bridge for half-hourly trains to Stratford. 20 minute walk to St James Street for quarter-hourly trains to Liverpool St.
>
>
> Membership numbers will not be maintained at such a location. Also, good luck convincing the landlord that you need to issue 1,200 copies of the estate gate key!
>

@Tom Sands

Trustees are not only guards of rules, their are EXECUTIVE part of Hackspace as membership...

This means, as it's primarily THEIR job to execute changes, moves and anything, what it related to LHS...

But you are right, as it's whole membership "business" and it's reason, why people discuss about it, even we have "time" of one and half year...

I can't imagine splitted space into separate small places. I do not want finish part of job on laser cutter at place Nr 1, then move whole project to another place, because I need CNC and the. To another one, because za need electronic area.
For me, idea to split to small like independent places is wrong. And will cost more money.

Of course, no option will be cheap, no option will be easy to manage.

But if we will act little bit more "commercial", like have "small studios for rent" and "hot-desk" place in action, we could rise significant amount of necessary money for rent and do not push so hardly to need new and new members because need money.
This system in small working very well at CSL, it's working at spaces across the world, and it's simply useful to raise basic money to run the space and anything else, like donations or membership are them like pillow, which give you more freedom.

No there is not simply nice and cheap space in central london.
No, it will be not easy find out big place in zone 1-2-3

It will be need to look for something else, zone 4-5 could be still named London.

Convenient place like Hackney Road will be a) very expensive, b) soon also converted to something what make better profit for owner (why CSL get short term leave notice? Because while building come to be flats, same as on 447-453 Hackney Road).

And yes, if you look to CSL, you could see, as it is not easy to move in short notice, but we have more time, and we ALL will need to use this time.

Of course, thee will be grow up new small places, where will be involved our actual members, and, probably, very strong role there will be taken by Hackspace Foundation to support any new place, which will bring to HackSoace community new wind. It's life and it is right, up to, nobody will want kill original LHS and build new spaces on LHS blood.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

We know how much it will cost to rent a normal property because we've
been down that road. With a full years lead-time, this is a good point
to at least throw out these alternative ideas and discuss their
practicality.

We have trouble emptying the bins, but yet somehow we've managed to
build the classroom, the workshops and do a lot of serious rewiring.
Day-to-day issues don't mean we can't achieve larger targeted projects.

Consider it a feasibility study. We've started getting some ballpark
numbers for areas and costs for a "hackspace in a box", and a number of
pros & cons to the idea.

I'm sure sooner or later someone will also suggest buying a property
instead of renting, which wasn't feasible last time it was brought up. I
suspect it still isn't, but I'm happy to be proven wrong if that's the case.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

On 17/11/2016 16:49, 'Calum Nicoll' via London Hackspace wrote:
>

> I think the whole 'it's not like the good old days' is mostly wrong-
> everyone without fail has been friendly and helpful and there is still a
> community feel, if you actually go.
>
> I am highly in favour in keeping it in a central location in one space.
>
> On locations - I think the shipping containers is a good one. Not for
> easy of transport but for cost.
>
> SOmething
> like http://www.movehut.co.uk/property/322477-storage-yard-the-oval--hackney-road-london-/?k=4
> would offer the same space as hacksapce if outfitted with shipping
> containers, rent of 15k p/a. I reckon you could get 40' ex-shipping
> containers for 2k each. Maybe 20 would be enough, though you could
> stack them if neccessary. The whole outlay would be about 80k for the
> first year then much less for the next few.

If I read that advert right, it's for the unfinished building down the
street and the large traffic island outside it? It's an interesting
idea, but I don't see us making use of the building site in any way that
wouldn't expressly piss off our new neighbours.

Also the Containerville site at the end of the road uses 45x 40ft
containers, stacked three high, for scale for anyone looking at google
maps for plot sizes.

What is the cost on renting a brown field site such as it appears
Containerville has been built on?

[Jan Szumiec]

How would you heat it in the winter?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

As long as a boiler is installed professionally, I'm fairly sure a
central heating system can be configured in any way you like. Confirm/deny?

Off the top of my head it'd be fairly easy to line & board a container &
fit it with a radiator with specific hookup points and network them
together.

On 17/11/2016 19:46, Jan Szumiec wrote:
> How would you heat it in the winter?
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:49 PM, 'Calum Nicoll' via London Hackspace
> <london-h...@googlegroups.com

[Billy]

And this one is right around the corner from the current site,

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/details/37236725

http://www.movehut.co.uk/property/411800/?k=5

[Pingless]

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 21:23:28 UTC, Billy wrote:

And this one is right around the corner from the current site,

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/details/37236725

You missed the bit where someone already mentioned that this one is 3 times the cost of our current one - £78k p.a. is the smallest unit, the actual price is £35/sqm/a compared to our current price of £13/sqm/a. 

[Billy]

Owww! Yes, i did miss that.

The problem is that we'll face this sort of price rise everywhere in London.

Anywhere that is cheaper, will have a reason that it is cheaper, usually, the accessibility/transport issue.

----------------------------------------------------------

One other thought, i spoke with Rachel Coldicutt from https://doteveryone.org.uk/ via twitter back in October.

They are currently looking for a new space as well, https://doteveryone.org.uk/blog/2016/10/were-looking-for-a-new-space/ 

I put her in touch with the Trustee's, and that was the last i heard, till this discussion started.

I'll give her a shout to see if they're still looking.

----------------------------------------------------------------

There will be other groups out there that are looking to share some space in town, so it's maybe a case of finding groups that have compatible visions of how they want to do things, and working from there.

[Paddy Duncan]

Lol, we were offered that place in August 2015, when the 3-year break clause on the lease was coming up… :/

Paddy

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Adrian Godwin]

There are buildings that are available rent-free - The Hive in Dalston is one such.

They tend to be short-let : it's just a way of using the space while waiting for redevelopment - but perhaps we could carry the container idea forward for a more indoor scheme and make the space easy to move to take advantage of that sort of building.

One way to do that would be to palletise everything that can't be carried by hand.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Liam Lynch]

Has no one considered the evolutionary limitation. If the enviroment can no longer support the population then population dies. With it the species that feed from the primary population also dies. Maybe the time of the Hackspace is coming to an end.

Liam

[David Murphy]

The hackspace is not made up of genes, it's made up of thinking humans.

If we have to move somewhere smaller then we'll have to move somewhere smaller. It happens. We aren't cheek by jowl in the current space so while it may mean having to give up some up the ultra large projects and some of the machines we'll still be perfectly capable of functioning as a hackspace.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Liam Lynch <dickhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Has no one considered the evolutionary limitation. If the enviroment can no longer support the population then population dies. With it the species that feed from the primary population also dies. Maybe the time of the Hackspace is coming to an end.

Liam

[Harry Streuli]

From my experience with containers, it is more often than not far too much effort - the expense in lining/waterproofing/making windows etc is almost as much as building a building, so you may as well just do that.

[Tom Sands]

This is also my concern. Remember that container project that was in the yard? They spent weeks with a constant group of 4 or 5 people converting just one container which ran horrendously over budget and passed several deadlines.

[Stefan Sabo]

Simply look to actual market is:

At E2 area, you need to expect price 20-50/m2/a

If you want similar price as we pay now, you need to look areas like Barking, Dagenham, and their warehouses.

Or, news to look to SW or SE London, where you could find some warehouses with reasonable prices (15-25) and enough space (ok, forgot for warehouse with 5 loading bays for truck, even, you could find also something biiiiiig like this)

If you find something relatively suit for us at E, it have always clue, like contract is guaranteed only up to start of conversion, or, short term rent, because awaiting resolution, what will next...

Build container willage is very expensive option, if you need build everything from ground on empty land.
First year could easily overtake more then 10 times standard year expenses, easily more and request an much protects, allowance, build energy supply, etc etc. Use containers INSIDE big one hall warehouse is more likely option, then dream about HackWillage

[Harry Streuli]

To put a 'HackVillage' into context, this project was just completed in Croydon. http://www.archdaily.com/799612/boxpark-croydon-bdp

The contract value was ~£3m. There will be land and professional fees on top of that, as well as fit out. You can expect an easy extra %100. The net internal area is 2600sqm. That is £1150/sqm. This needs to be put to bed as a ridiculously un-viable option.

Other things to consider with a hackvillage are:

Planning Consent

Building Control

Procurement

Professional fees

Actually owning some land to build on. (You can't just plop a whole bunch of containers on rented land without permission.)

Insurance

If someone has a spare £5m in their back pocket, then we can entertain the idea of building a HackVillage, otherwise it isn't even worth talking about. (If they do however, I would be very happy to pitch for delivering Architectural services, sound like it would be so much fun!!!!! :) )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/NlM5N5sif3k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Christopher Paton]

Has anyone thought of tottenham?

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/industrial-sites/tottenham/?property_sub_type=warehouse&campaign=205025653&gclid=CPmhvbC8stACFcW4Gwod4t4LXA&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=COzPyrC8stACFSWg7Qod0o4OiA

[Harry Streuli]

I don't think we should focus too much on the size of a potential new space. We are very lucky to have such a large space at the moment, but if the hackspace is likely to split into two North London spaces, we should look for something comparably smaller. Obviously there will be a lot of space consumed by replicating some equipment, but general work area and storage won't need to be anything like as onerous. 

There are many industrial units available with an area of more like 3000 sqft, which might be more appropriate? For example: http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/details/42124838?search_identifier=da6a1644ab20a07fc839857ad7bcc9d2#grKpU7XP8TlReIXi.97

PS. I'm registering interest in a NW1/3/5/8 hackspace. Or as close as possible...

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

Could we create some sort of poll to get a map of rough member
locations? EG; See if there's concentrations of membership in certain
boroughs?

I'm just realising that we're not really taking access by the membership
into account yet.

On 18/11/2016 14:06, Christopher Paton wrote:
> Has anyone thought of tottenham?
>
> http://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/commercial/industrial-sites/tottenham/?property_sub_type=warehouse&campaign=205025653&gclid=CPmhvbC8stACFcW4Gwod4t4LXA&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=COzPyrC8stACFSWg7Qod0o4OiA
>

> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

> Google Groups "London Hackspace" group. To unsubscribe from this

> group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

> london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com>. For more
> options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[DSSlocksmiths]

The big issue we currently have at Make:Bromyard, split as as now are between, in theory at least, two locations, is that we can't have a regular evening at one location and switch it to the other because if a new member turns up to the wrong location, you've probably lost them.
Of course, with 20+ active members for each site, you can mitigate that easily enough. (We are still tiny)

Having one tool at one location and another elsewhere is a nightmare though. If they're going to be the same committee/trustees etc it'll be very difficult. Basically, everything doubles up, except for membership!

[Billy]

One way around this problem, is for all of the subsidiary hackspaces to have the same initial tool-set, and then any additional tools that we make, in terms of jigs, clamps, lathe fitments, workbenchs, etc, to be replicated. ie, when you get one that works, make as many as is needed for the other hackspaces.

If we're all doing this, then the improvements would take place exponentially.

This was also how i originally approached building the workshop in Cremer Street. One project for myself, and then one to improve the infrastructure of the workshop. 

[DomK]

My question is what happens with the infrastructure. (laser/ 3d printers) stuff that the whole space pledged for how is that stuff divided out or will it go to the highest bidder?

[disconc...@gmail.com]

It's potential membership as well as current membership to some extent. I'm in Harrow and LHS is currently a big slog, which is why I get there so rarely; if there was something — even something much less well-equipped — in the north-west, I'd probably make a lot more use of it.

> <mailto:london-hack-space+unsub...@googlegroups.com>. For more
> options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[unknowndomain]

If you look at the minimum membership of Hackspace, it's £5, I don't know when that was set but in 2009 when Hackspace was established the rate of inflation up to the end of 2015 means today you should be charging over £6 as a minimum now, or to look in reverse, the £5 today is worth at most £4 back then. 

Now add to that to the fact from next year through the next 5 years the cost of Business Rates for most companies will increase dramatically because of the ongoing property boom, and conversion of commercial property into residential and it starts to look very unlikely that sustaining the £5 minimum, or £10 average has been realistic for years.

It seems very obvious that drastic action is required to avoid impending doom for Hackspace, people have reasonably suggested increasing the minimum before without rage and the result is now a substancial rise is needed to accommodate the status quo. For context most newer organisations start on £20-30 a month these days. South London Makerspace has been charging that without issue since day 1, ditto Create Space London. Machines Room charges £40 a month. 

If you increased the minimum to £20 and 50% of the membership left as a result you'd still have twice as much money to make the system for for the remaining 50%. You can still offer free and discounted memberships on a case by case basis for people who have low or no income as most of the above spaces do.

Personally, I would avoid moving Hackspace too far, even the Cremer Street > Hackney Road move was disrupting enough that people left. It's part of a square mile around the Vyner Street area called Maker Mile and it's also where your members can get to. Moving substantially to places suggested will likely see a larger fall off than increasing the fee.

It's important to remember London has come from the days of Backspace and Deckspace to the first proper Hackspace in 2009 with London Hackspace, to over 45 open workshops of varying types from Makerspaces and Hackerspaces to commercial workshops. There is a lot more on offer these days and Hackspace has something really special about it that should be kept in my view, however it also needs to be financially viable and get with the times a bit.

Some of the main reasons people join South London Makerspace and I've heard similar said at other spaces during the Open Workshop London meetings where directors and trustees from spaces across London meet up, they say the same two things over and over about members joining them after visiting or leaving Hackspace:

1. Because it's too far away

2. The community is __________.

That blank space is often filled with words that describe the the dunbar number problem hackspace has that 1,200+ members can't all know each other, words range from intimidating, to unfriendly. And I know thats not always true because many people love it there, but the fact remains there are issues for some. 

Does that mean Hackspace needs to be everything to everyone? Or should it try to be a really great place for a smaller group of people?

Final point to make about the idea of a pan London membership, is that it's been discussed over and over in the past, but as mentioned here the financial reality is very difficult to overcome, that also coupled with having random people come into a community just to use a tool isn't what most folks want.

Sorry there are no answers here, but some views/comments/ideas.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

There are a number of options available. First and foremost though, not
all subsequent orgs may have room for, or interest in, all the
equipment. I think we can expect to see some specialisation in
individual spaces.

Wholesale "selling off" would likely only be an option if the LHS were
first completely dissolved. I think it's more likely that a core
LHS-derived hackspace will continue with a couple of other spaces
budding off.

The value of pledged equipment is also not a constant as it will
depreciate. It also may be that equipment maintainers would have a
greater justification for equipment going where they go. EG; if the 3D
printing group has 90% of their membership at one new space, that's a
pretty good justification for them having the 3D printers.

We also have records of who pledged for what equipment. I don't think
there are any items where the whole space pledged for something, though
some have been partly paid for from the hackspace accounts (as in the
case of the lasercutter).

Also most of the equipment is here by donation or long-term loan, so
would likely go wherever the donater says.

I suspect a new space would likely want to buy all-new basic essentials.
Plus we've had more than a few duplicate donations offered in the past.
We've turned down free 3D printers several times in the last few months
alone because you don't really need that many of them.

The sticking point would be in the outlaying cases. Those items where
there is collectively membership demand, the space, expertise AND where
infrastructure had been bought from central funds. I think that is just
the lasercutter, but I may be wrong.

It would likely be on a case-by-case basis. There's no single clean-cut
answer. For items of real contention however, the fairest way may be
something like a partial buy-back; One space pays a portion of the items
remaining value, relative to the number of transferring members who want it.

Or alternately, if the transferring membership contained a
disproportionate number of equipment contributors, the space retaining
the equipment could help contribute to a replacement.

In the case of the lasercutter, it is greatly oversized for most
day-to-day cutting jobs, so a new space could well make-do with a
smaller cutter with the agreement to share access to the larger one as
required. The type of rather terrible overpowered Chinese laser engraver
we made do with for so many years start at about £300.

[Lying Flotus]

I am a newcomer, frequenting the space for just under a month. It has a great community feel here and I think this is what makes it unique and valuable. This should also be its strength (disagreements aside).
I think if it is at all possible to get recognition as a community resource from the borough, city, govt (or even EU while we're still in it ...?) and receive funding would be the solution most integral to what the space actually is. I think providing classes to the community is a great idea, I can offer teaching of software development classes (13 yrs exp) if it can help raise the spaces profile towards an funding-eligible status.

On Saturday, 12 November 2016 22:40:15 UTC, Michal Stefanow (genesis.re) wrote:

Accounts thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/london-hack-space/accounts|sort:relevance/london-hack-space/LDzl5Bja9D4/67DMWAxNAwAJ

Healthy cash reserves, healthy profit.

> from April 2017 we will be paying more than double the business rates we currently pay

Councils do have the power to discount business rates relief by up to 
100% for non-profits, however it's very difficult to extract this 
discount from London borough councils because they want you to prove 
that you primarily benefit *their* residents (which is quite silly). 
It may still be worth attempting this again given the sheer amount 
we'll be paying in business rates. 

Problem ---> Solution.

They want us to provide services that benefit their residents ---> consider it done.

Here is an idea of helping homeless ---> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LznDZqb-FniryXHcrOc9EuJJibhEYp9OlUZjJxALPqM/edit?usp=sharing (instead of giving £2 / warm coat / packed lunch that doesn't change anything in the long run ---> raise £200 and reboot a single life in a week)

Here is yet another idea of 1 day intensive web development workshop ---> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hwtt3zIKEPq7uAapmJ-YX7XmwWoPyZnkWDvSg9SOu4c/edit (it might be old, outdates, it was sitting in my GoogleDocs for ages, I'm just giving you an idea) 

Now I'll cross-post these links to the actual accounts thread for better visibility.

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 6:33:31 PM UTC, Sci wrote:

See the accounts thread. The space will not be able to renew the current
lease at the end of next year. Rates will also greatly increase and
there are low odds of getting another physical venue this size.

This thread is more about the social environment of the space and that
it is too large to be sustained with the feeling/ethos of a hackerspace.
Older members want that Cheers "where everybody knows your name" feeling
back, which works well with the self-driven anarchic principle of
operation. A principle which does not seem to scale with membership numbers.

Personally I do not think the hackspace is sustainable at current
membership numbers with the existing management structure. It's large
enough that people fill the perceived power vacuums and find themselves
at odds with the otherwise hands-off directorship.

The sustainable options are either to remain a monolithic entity but
with greater official delegation of management to maintain coherence
across the larger user base, or to divide into a number of smaller
spaces with lower membership that can remain operating under casual
guidance. I don't see any other options. Remaining as-is in a new venue
will only increase the unpleasant atmosphere until things suddenly collapse.


On 12/11/2016 16:08, Michal Stefanow (genesis.re) wrote:
> I'm missing essential context for this discussion --> are there
> announcements about increased rent / splitting up the space? (please
> share a link to discussion page)
>
> It's counterintuitive, after all Raspberry Pi was created to generate
> massive interest in computing / making.
>
> Being hacker / maker is the new hip --> I cannot believe membership
> numbers are going down?

[Tom Newsom]

As far as I can tell, the lease on Hackney Road expires exactly one year from today.

So...... Bump. How are plans going? I saw some murmurs of other spaces being set up?

[Andy Focallocal]

i'm looking around for a warehouse right now to start a space on the Hackspace model, but with a focus on projects to benefit the local community (tech and non-tech). it's not technically the same as a Hackspace, but if you're interested in the idea i'd love some help

Andy



On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 10:29:37 AM UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:

On 10 November 2016 at 09:38, Benjamin Blundell <onid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tl;dr I will vote for whichever trustees pledges to break up the space,
> moving to separate premises, separate lists and IRC channels.

In my opinion, it's not the trustees' job to split up the space. It's
going to be a decent amount of work just to find one new space, and
the trustees should concentrate on that. It's not fair to make the
trustees' already busy job even busier by making them manage multiple
spaces. There is an upper limit to what volunteers can do.

The new space will have to be smaller, or further away from central
London, and it's likely that will cause some membership dropoff. So
the trustees will have to bear that in mind. Some of the equipment may
have to be donated to other spaces.

I've always said that London should have a number of spaces, but those
spaces need to be run by their own independent organisations. I am, as
ever, always willing to help get those organisations started - this is
part of why I'm standing down as a trustee this year.

Cheers,

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[Andy Focallocal]

or can visit a certain number of days each year, so they pay membership to their own but have say 30 days a year they are able to be in other spaces. any longer than that and they should switch their membership. 



On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 2:33:04 PM UTC, Sci wrote:

The idea has been addressed before. The unsolved issue is what happens
about spaces that take a disproportionate amount of funding.

EG; if all the spaces have roughly the same membership and costs, it's
fine. But if one has lower attendance than the rest, it's a burden
compared to the others. You end up in a cycle that will pressure smaller
ones to shut down and be absorbed, leading back to a single hackspace again.

If we're wildly brainstorming, would a franchise system work? Or an
associated membership where those signed up at a different venue pay
extra to use other ones but still have access?

On 12/11/2016 09:58, Adrian Godwin wrote:
> It's attractive, but how do you fund it ?
>
> Each has costs that they can just sustain. Do members pay only one
> membership and get access to all ?
> Or have to pay all memberships ?
> If they pay only one, how is the income shared out ?
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Toria <tor...@gmail.com
> <mailto:tor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     How about, a collective of London hackspaces with a collective
>     membership?
>     I do like the simplicity of having everything in one place for
>     having a sudden idea and grabbing the kit, but the journey is a slog.

[Andy Focallocal]

the map i've been building to help the homeless is just about to alpha-launch. its taken 1.5 years of slow work and and lots of volunteers. any and all help welcome: http://brightertomorrowmap.com/

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:13:21 PM UTC, Ben Clifford wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2016, Michal Stefanow (genesis.re) wrote:

> Here is an idea of helping homeless --->
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LznDZqb-FniryXHcrOc9EuJJibhEYp9OlUZjJxALPqM/edit?usp=sharing (instead of

> giving ?2/ warm coat / packed lunch that doesn't change anything in the long run ---> raise ?200 and reboot a

> single life in a week)

If you're serious about this, consider doing a week of shifts here:

http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/activity-leader-it.html

It's not the same as what you propose but related, and in a well
established charity with plenty of support and existing experience.

--

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

A village blacksmith based pun for a name?

On 13/03/2017 18:28, Andy Focallocal wrote:
> i'm looking around for a warehouse right now to start a space on the
> Hackspace model, but with a focus on projects to benefit the local
> community (tech and non-tech). it's not technically the same as a
> Hackspace, but if you're interested in the idea i'd love some help
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 10:29:37 AM UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:
>
> On 10 November 2016 at 09:38, Benjamin Blundell <onid...@gmail.com

> <javascript:>> wrote:
> > tl;dr I will vote for whichever trustees pledges to break up the
> space,
> > moving to separate premises, separate lists and IRC channels.
>
> In my opinion, it's not the trustees' job to split up the space. It's
> going to be a decent amount of work just to find one new space, and
> the trustees should concentrate on that. It's not fair to make the
> trustees' already busy job even busier by making them manage multiple
> spaces. There is an upper limit to what volunteers can do.
>
> The new space will have to be smaller, or further away from central
> London, and it's likely that will cause some membership dropoff. So
> the trustees will have to bear that in mind. Some of the equipment may
> have to be donated to other spaces.
>
> I've always said that London should have a number of spaces, but those
> spaces need to be run by their own independent organisations. I am, as
> ever, always willing to help get those organisations started - this is
> part of why I'm standing down as a trustee this year.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Russ Garrett

> ru...@garrett.co.uk <javascript:>

[Tom Murray]

Ill help on this dude Tom

[Tom Murray]

This cant be true tom, when I was having a bit of a hissy fit drama about my G5 ppc growing legs, i mentioned in the IRC how can someone like myself as a student rep, bring potential new members to the space, when there could be a good chance of them having stuff stolen or moved around with no word to anyone etc and i was met with a ?members command reply in the IRC from a trustee or someone else who thinks they are a trustee basically showing around 1,2-300 members paid saying the HS has no issues with members OR FUNDS which is also akin to what a lot of other people have been telling me when this discussion comes around.


Its obvious that a meeting needs to be planned and ADVERTISED CLEARLY in the space for a good couple of months so that anyone who really has a purpose or reason to interject in this issue can do so and people can feel like we are all having a hand in the future of our beloved social depraved niche corner of reality...

[Tom Newsom]

On Friday, 17 March 2017 11:58:53 UTC, Tom Murray wrote:

 the HS has no issues with members OR FUNDS

In its current location, there are no funding issues. To maintain a similar location and size of premises, there are BIG issues.

See here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/london-hack-space/NlM5N5sif3k/29SVjMfABAAJ

The social issues that come from having >1,200 members is a more woolly topic for debate, but personally I think that's far too large for the management/organisational structure used at LHS. I won't write an essay for now :)

[maria....@visionrcl.org.uk]

Hi Russ,

We are interested in a Hackspace in Ilford, east London. Is there any chance I could get an email of someone that would like to discuss with us please.

Regards,

Maria

On Monday, 14 November 2016 18:00:20 UTC, Sci wrote:

I don't think the Horticultural Centre is suitable as a hackspace since
it's entirely greenhouses. Probably of more use to urban agriculture groups.

Also remember the wiki lists our current venue as 6500sq/ft for
comparison. I don't know if that number includes the yard space, but the
largest size listed on that link isn't even half the size of the current
venue.

It's also probably worth seeing what the penalty is for ending our
current lease early if we needed to move quickly on something. I seem to
recall that last move the idea of paying rent on two places at the same
time wasn't affordable so we were also limited by properties that would
be available as close as possible to the end of our lease.

(in other words, if we found somewhere perfect right now we probably
couldn't go for it anyway)

On 14/11/2016 14:14, Ian Lowe wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> I think Haringey council (www.haringey.gov.uk
> <http://www.haringey.gov.uk>)  charge about £10 to £15 per square foot
> for their Industrial units, you can contact them for an available
> properties list, but here's what I found:
>
>  http://www.haringey.gov.uk/business/available-properties/commercial-properties-let
>
> I know they have some industrial units out near Tottenham way of about
> 2/2500sq ft and another place thats up  for community use that's pretty
> big, its set inside a park in Wood Green and called Wolves Lane
> Horticultural Centre  They're after proposals for it's use now as the
> council can't afford to run it as is any more.  It's a pretty decent
> sized space, maybe not quite as big as the current one but still might
> be worth a look as you can likely tick the boxes the council are after..
>
> Is Haringey too far out of the centre of London for folks?
>
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 13:20:35 UTC, Russ Garrett wrote:
>
>     For the record, from an accounting/property perspective, Tom's
>     assumptions are pretty much spot on.
>
>     Russ
>
>     On 14 November 2016 at 13:15, Tom Newsom <tom.n...@gmail.com
>     <javascript:>> wrote:
>     > It's not just a social challenge that LHS faces, but a financial
>     one too.
>     > LHS currently pays £85,000pa in rent, or ~£13/ft² (based on the
>     6500ft²
>     > figure from the wiki)
>     > Unless there's an unusual arrangement, this will include VAT.
>     >
>     > Compared to the local area, this is an absurdly good deal. Up the
>     road at
>     > Cambridge Heath, you can expect to pay £35/ft² *plus* VAT for a
>     similar
>     > on-street industrial space. More than 3x the price. To get the
>     price back
>     > down, you need to go further out of London to an industrial estate in
>     > Walthamstow, Woodford or Wembley. What would the greater
>     inconvenience of
>     > these far-out places do to the membership?
>     >
>     > Plan B: Hike the average membership contribution by 3x. It's
>     currently just
>     > over £10. Yikes.
>     >
>     > Plan C: Strike a middle ground. Don't move as far, but make a more
>     realistic
>     > increase in fees to £20. This is our "standard" payment at SLMS, with
>     > discounts readily available for low income/unemployed people. As
>     we look to
>     > our own future and a potential move (our railway arch is always
>     under silent
>     > threat of Network Rail's lumbering gentrification programme), we
>     find that
>     > £20/month/person is about what it takes to afford a decently-sized
>     and
>     > well-located property.
>     >
>     > However, such properties that meet LHS's current space demands are
>     very few
>     > and far between. See for yourself. Smaller spaces are more
>     available and
>     > more centrally located.
>     >
>     > My conclusion: Increase rates to £20. Split into 2 or 3 smaller
>     groups. The
>     > current situation is not sustainable, and attempting business as
>     usual will
>     > result the unorderly demise of LHS.

>     >
>     > --
>     > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>     Groups
>     > "London Hackspace" group.
>     > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>     send an

>     > email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.

>     > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout

>     <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

>
>
>
>     --
>     Russ Garrett
>     ru...@garrett.co.uk <javascript:>
>

[Samb1]

Hi,

This is definitely becoming a timely issue now.

If anyone knows about any potential spaces to look at please let me know ( bios...@gmail.com ) and/or email trus...@london.hackspace.org.uk . 

I'm happy to go and look at places and talk to landlords/agents so we can build up realistic picture of what our options are.

It's probs also time to go looking at stuff that's in zoopla etc, but anything word-of-mouth will be worth looking into too.

Cheers,

Sam

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:38:55 AM UTC, Oni wrote:

tl;dr I will vote for whichever trustees pledges to break up the space, moving to separate premises, separate lists and IRC channels.

I've given up my box, I pay the minimum, I stopped being a laser maintainer, I no longer work on any projects in the space. And I'm not the only one.

I've been involved in the space since the archery range and I've helped the place grow. That feeling was a massive driver. I benefited, and the space benefited. We had our time together and it wsa glorious!

I've seen the place change and I've changed. I'm happy that we've offered a place for so many people to come together and do things. But what I'm seeing now I don't like, and I'm not the only one.

Many of the problems I've noticed cannot be solved by technology, or rules or anything along these lines. The best solution, it seems to me, is to breakup the space into smaller places. Dunbar's number is the simplest way to explain this. I do not feel connected to the people in the space anymore. Again, I'm not the only one.

I suspect soon we won't have a choice in the matter. Rents are going up and there is a chance we may not get to keep the space we are in. Why not seize control of this and make it an opportunity? I feel we would all feel much better as a result.

I'd propose a series of site searches, selected a number of good sites  > 1 in the first instance.

Thoughts?

B

 

[Tom Newsom]

(could have sworn I replied already. not sure if I forgot to click Post, or if the message is being held in moderation. if it's the latter, sorry mods!)

It's this one: https://goo.gl/maps/diyVjj9WQkB2

It was shared on the list but I can't find it right now. There's a spray booth with mezanine offices above. About half the total floor area compared to the current premises. Looks to be in good condition.

[Samb1]

Thanks, defo worth a look. Wonder what the sq footage is.

Although the road down there seems to be used by the garages/MOT places to keep their smashed up vehicles (I think those businesses will probably be staying there?..).

[Tom Newsom]

Should keep the rent down!

[Hari Karam Singh]

Are you aware of the South London makerspace: https://southlondonmakerspace.org/  Perhaps a collab with the?  Also Bermondsey, esp South B has a lot of industrial spaces. Here's a PDF from artistic-spaces.co.uk (saves you needing to get on their hard-sell phone list!)

http://air-craft-eu.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/List-of-available-work-studios-17th-of-November-2016-1-/List-of-available-work-studios-17th-of-November-2016-1-.pdf

Gratefully,

Hari Karam Singh

On Thursday, 20 April 2017 19:49:29 UTC+1, Tom Newsom wrote:

Should keep the rent down!

[Tom Newsom]

Yes, I founded it :D

[Hari Karam Singh]

Awesome. I live in Crofton Park - not far away. Would love to pay a visit sometime and take a look around...

HK

[Tom Newsom]

Every Wednesday from 19:30 is open evening :)