Coworking Models

[longbrook]

In the course of my research, I have found 3 different models of
coworking, usually labeled 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 for some reason... I'll
write some more about these on Catalyst704.com, if you need an idea of
what the differences are.

We are wanting to own and operate a space as our business. We are
both in the corporate world, but want to get out of it, and see this
is a viable business opportunity that would help other small/
independent business out, as well as the mobile worker in the
corporate sector.

Are any of your spaces operating like this? Do the owners also join in
as coworkers? Do you have staff, or does everyone pitch in to perform
all the operating tasks of running the facility, like paying the
bills, collecting rent, maintaining supplies, etc...

Maybe a more straight forward question: Has anyone launched a space
without the purpose of having a place to run their already
established, self-run business from, but as a business venture in and
of itself? Has it succeeded? Why or why not?

Nathan
704.778.0533
www.catalyst704.com

[Dusty]

Hi Nathan,

We're running Conjunctured in Austin as a business start-up.

Our idea is to create an agency that shares the culture of an open
source development team, and is built on top of a coworking space. We
do monthly memberships and daily walk-ins. We try to provide coworking
at the lowest cost possible while making our profits from agency work
and special events held in the coworking space.

We aim to use our brand to attract agency projects that our members
can benefit from. The idea is that as a project comes in the door, we
can dynamically create a team of independents who opt in to the gig.
When the project is over our team disperses until the next project.
This will provide a means of income and a small amount of security for
our members in order to help them continue working on their passion
projects. Further, we hope that this arrangement will provide our
agency clients with work developed from some of the most creative and
passionate people in their field.

We're looking to attract entrepreneurs, inventors, creatives, and
independents in an effort to catalyze innovation and small business.
We consider ourselves as an incubator for independents creating a
start-up or growing into small business.

That's the idea at least. :) We've been open for a little over a
month.

Dusty

[Jerome Chang]

Yes, we operate for profit.  I believe Austin's LaunchPad does, too.

I started this whole venture to establish an office for myself as an architect, which I do continue to do (2 projects going through building permits now!)

I have staff to man the front desk and do general office mgmt (supplies, etc.), and I act as the GM...for now.  Eventually, I'll transition out and hire a replacement.  Then it's off to build another location!

Jerome

______________
BLANKSPACES
"work wide open"

www.blankspaces.com
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea)
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.330.9505 (office)

[Julie Gomoll]

Nathan -

Launchpad Coworking is for profit, and was started as a business venture in and of itself.

We'll have 30 individual workspaces and 6 meeting rooms, all with hourly rates. We'll offer discounts for bulk hour purchases, but we won't have any monthly memberships. We'll also have a cafe that's open to the public.

We'll have staff - cafe, customer service, and a GM. We'll be open 7am-10pm every day, so that adds up to quite a few shifts actually. I will also be a full time employee.

We've received nothing but enthusiastic response to our plans in Austin. I'm looking forward to opening in October for the obvious reasons, but also because then *I* get to go work there :)

Julie Gomoll
http://launchpadcoworking.com

[Joseph Holsten]

If you can, please publish what you're talking about. I know this sort
of info isn't in the wiki yet. I'd be especially interested in knowing
the differences between each sort and which spaces are what.
(LaunchPad is 1.0, IndyHall is 2.0, HatFactory is 3.0?)

http://JosephHolsten.com

[Tara Hunt]

I don't understand the 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 defining characteristics.

--
tara 'missrogue' hunt
coFounder
Citizen Agency (www.citizenagency.com)
blog: www.horsepigcow.com
phone: 415-694-1951
fax: 415-727-5335

[hillary hartley]

what she said. :)

curious where you've found these "usually labeled" models. also curious
if, as a community, this is something we should discuss. the key to
explaining coworking to the mainstream media has been simplicity.

just, as i mentioned, curious...
hillary

[Joseph Holsten]

Exactly. This is what I'm trying to clarify with the stuff on
<http://wiki.coworking.info/Patterns>.

Of course, I like to imagine that
1.0 := grassroots funding, leadership, not-for-profit (HatFactory)
2.0 := Solo funding & management, still not-for-profit / breakeven
(CitizenSpace)
3.0 := Solo funding & management, for-profit (Blankspaces)

Have you guys got another way of discriminating between spaces?

http://JosephHolsten.com

[Steven Heath]

2008/8/12 Joseph Holsten <jos...@josephholsten.com>

Exactly. This is what I'm trying to clarify with the stuff on
<http://wiki.coworking.info/Patterns>.

Of course, I like to imagine that
1.0 := grassroots funding, leadership, not-for-profit (HatFactory)
2.0 := Solo funding & management, still not-for-profit / breakeven
(CitizenSpace)
3.0 := Solo funding & management, for-profit (Blankspaces)

Have you guys got another way of discriminating between spaces?

Why discriminate at all?

It is the outcome that matters in that the space meets the requirements of those using it.

Do I care that the money used by a government to build a road came from personal taxes, corporate tax or sales tax?

--
Steven Heath
Director
Foxbane Consulting
Cell: +64 21 706-067

Interested in Coworking in Wellington? Check out www.altspace.co.nz

[Raines Cohen]

I think the 1.0,2.0,3.0 labeling doesn't serve because in common use
in the software world it implies that the higher numbers are
sequential revisions to the predecessors, with the bugs fixed (except
for Microsoft products, of course).

I think if you look carefully at the history of the evolution of
spaces that for-profit shared-office commercial ventures have been
around for quite some time, as have incubators and other grassroots
efforts. And since the lease was invented, both commercial and
residential tenants have sought to sub-lease excess capacity, whether
as a short-term lease, month-to-month, replacing departed housemates,
or in other fashions.

There may be some small differences as to when people using each model
in different particular spaces started commonly using the word
coworking, but that seems of less significance than the social
dynamics of the operation in each model, and all the hybrids that
exist between 'em.

It seems like trying to figure out whether square or round lightbulbs
were more commonly used the year after the lightbulb was invented.

The patterns page is helpful, but beware of the wiki-driven tendency
to over-categorize or overemphasize categorization: the medium can
interfere with fullest appreciation/development of the message.

Raines Cohen, Coworking Coach
http://www.CoworkingCoach.com/

[Raines Cohen]

[Jerome Chang]

While we're on the subject of #'s, I wanted to throw out there a term I've been using: web 2.5.

With all the tech activity in web 2.0 (FB, MySpace, etc.), coworking is really about social/professional networking, but both online and offline.  We might not yet have the volume or quick scalability like in a pure online network, but the quality of our relationships is so much more productive...and REAL.

Jerome

______________
BLANKSPACES
"work wide open"

www.blankspaces.com
5405 Wilshire Blvd (2 blocks west of La Brea)
Los Angeles, CA 90036
323.330.9505 (office)

[Tony Bacigalupo]

This discussion sort of bleeds back into the discussion about what coworking itself actually is, and what constitutes coworking or not coworking.

I maintain that coworking is a concept that can be espoused by people, businesses, and organizations, and not something which is black and white, or even grayscale (or number scale, at that).

A place might declare itself a "coworking" space, but coworking's going to mean something different to everyone based on a lot of other factors.

This is why I love Alex's recipe analogy so much. If coworking's pizza, then you're going to have sicilian, margharita, deep dish, grandma's, all sorts of stuff with different doughs and sauces and toppings and cooking styles. And my mom's recipe is always going to be the best one :-)

If you put tomato sauce and cheese on English muffins and bake it, is it pizza? It doesn't matter, because it tastes really really good.

It's not about whether or not it's pizza. It's whether the combination of the ingredients makes for something that tastes good.

Will certain patterns ultimately emerge? Certainly, and perhaps a few have been identified here... but not in terms of ranking, maybe in terms of popular flavors.

So maybe start with this:

Mushroom = Grassroots funding, leadership, not-for-profit (HatFactory)
Sicilian = Solo funding & management, still not-for-profit / breakeven (CitizenSpace)
Pepperoni = Solo funding & management, for-profit (Blankspaces)

This thread is now making me very hungry :-)

Perhaps you can identify a few basic models like these and plot how many of them pop up over time to see some trends, but it's probably far too early to discern any sort of shift or evolution in the popularity of models over time, especially with such a small set of data.

Interesting stuff to think about. I'm off to buy some English muffins and tomato sauce and cheese!

Tony Bacigalupo
New Work City / CooBric / Jelly in NYC

[Tara Hunt]

What I love about coworking is that all the spaces have their own flavor. It's really hard to classify spaces that are so different. 

Tara

[David K]

CubeSpace is very much designed and run along these lines. We do have
staff, and our goal to create a space where it is as easy as possible
for our customers to become members of the community: the barriers to
entry and requirements of our members are minimal.

David Kominsky
CubeSpace
Da...@CubeSpacePDX.com
www.CubeSpacePDX.com

[Julie Gomoll]

That's the first time I heard the pizza analogy. I love it!

No calzones - we're into transparency!

[Thomas Beckett]

Jumping in here as a newbie on this list and one interested in the
coworking concept in a community that doesn't have a space.

Is there a coworking space that is organized as a cooperative? That is,
owned by the membership of its users (but not a nonprofit)?

It just seems to me that the coop business model would dovetail well
with coworking.

Thomas

Tony Bacigalupo wrote:
> This discussion sort of bleeds back into the discussion about what
> coworking itself actually is, and what constitutes coworking or not
> coworking.
>
> I maintain that coworking is a concept that can be espoused by people,
> businesses, and organizations, and not something which is black and
> white, or even grayscale (or number scale, at that).
>
> A place might declare itself a "coworking" space, but coworking's going
> to mean something different to everyone based on a lot of other factors.
>
> This is why I love Alex's recipe analogy so much. If coworking's pizza,
> then you're going to have sicilian, margharita, deep dish, grandma's,
> all sorts of stuff with different doughs and sauces and toppings and
> cooking styles. And my mom's recipe is always going to be the best one :-)
>
> If you put tomato sauce and cheese on English muffins and bake it, is it
> pizza? It doesn't matter, because it tastes really really good.
>
> It's not about whether or not it's pizza. It's whether the combination
> of the ingredients makes for something that tastes good.
>
> Will certain patterns ultimately emerge? Certainly, and perhaps a few
> have been identified here... but not in terms of ranking, maybe in terms
> of popular flavors.
>
> So maybe start with this:
>

> *Mushroom* = Grassroots funding, leadership, not-for-profit (HatFactory)
> *Sicilian* = Solo funding & management, still not-for-profit / breakeven
> (CitizenSpace)
> *Pepperoni* = Solo funding & management, for-profit (Blankspaces)

> <mailto:jos...@josephholsten.com <mailto:jos...@josephholsten.com>>>

> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can, please publish what you're talking about. I know
> this sort
> >> of info isn't in the wiki yet. I'd be especially interested
> in knowing
> >> the differences between each sort and which spaces are what.
> >> (LaunchPad is 1.0, IndyHall is 2.0, HatFactory is 3.0?)
> >>
> >> http://JosephHolsten.com
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM, longbrook
> <long...@gmail.com <mailto:long...@gmail.com>

> >> <mailto:long...@gmail.com <mailto:long...@gmail.com>>>

> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In the course of my research, I have found 3 different
> models of
> >> > coworking, usually labeled 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 for some
> reason...
> >> I'll
> >> > write some more about these on Catalyst704.com, if you need an
> >> idea of
> >> > what the differences are.
> >>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Beckett, JD & MBA Business Law and Consulting
828-713-1668 <http://www.tbeckett.com>

Dropped digital signature.Encrypted communication available upon request.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[axon]

All--

Interesting discussion, lots of grist.

My take on this is that there are as many models for coworking as
there are iterations of it. Really, this needn't devolve into a
religious war.

I'm still taken with the "mental health club" model, and I think this
has the potential to throw a lot of cash. WADR to those who are
pursuing a collective model, I am an entrepreneur (actually, I hate
that term; prefer "opportunist"), the people I work with are
entrepreneurs (even better; "protoenterprise"), and I don't feel any
obligation to feel guilty about pursuing profit. Nor do I think that
profitability and the Pillars are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I think
the best profitable ventures have a public benefit at their center.

I remains to be seen; we're hoping to open doors in a few weeks. With
no marketing at all, we're getting calls every day about membership.
It's uncanny.

Love the pizza analogy. We're going for the "slice and a pint"
approach...

--Ax

[Tara Hunt]

Hey Thomas,

SoCoDepot (in Sonoma) uses a cooperative model. We started as a cooperative model for The Hat Factory in 2006, but found that it fell apart really fast...mostly because not everyone had the same level of buy-in.

Tara

[Suzi Edwards]

I'm a gluten-free gal so unless it's a rice-based pizza (ewwww), no
bites for me.

I'd be more apt to not bucket the flavors by non-profit/for-profit but
instead by use -- so, maybe it's less of a deep pan vs. thin crust
question and more of appetizer or main course question?

At group88, I feel almost like a coworking shadow because, in my area,
I've had to morph the concept. Yes, we have drop-ins who share open
spaces but we have full offices and a conference room and other
meeting areas which are used by traditional corporate folk,
professional service folk, lawyers and doctors.

Maybe the buckets take on this flavor?:

Bread sticks: casual spaces, jellies -- no professional amenities;
uber mobile folks/laptop loungers sharing work space during the day
Pizza: bigger spaces for a mix of casual drop-ins and full-timers with
some support/amenities like office equipment, coffee
Lasagna: spaces with more stuff -- admin, events, conferencing, etc.

Just a thought. If we have to bucket them at all, I see taking the
tack from the users p-o-v and what makes sense to the folks using the
spaces and what the need is vs. our definition from the business model
side of the table. I'm newer to the scene so this may not be most
clarifying path either. I do agree with Raines though that the 1.0,
2.0 analogy conjures up levels of development vs. descriptions of
various types.

Suzi E.

[Thomas Beckett]

Tara Hunt wrote:
> SoCoDepot (in Sonoma) uses a cooperative model. We started as a
> cooperative model for The Hat Factory in 2006, but found that it fell
> apart really fast...mostly because not everyone had the same level of
> buy-in.

Why do you think there was such varied buy-in at The Hat Factory? What
structure did it adope after the co-op failed?

There is a lot of cooperative ferment here in Asheville and also I think
we are ripe for a co-working space. I don't know of any individual
entrepreneurs who would take on such a task, but I think that a group
venture could organize fairly easily.

But yeah, how do you ensure sufficient commitment? Seems like a fair
amount of education and discussion on the co-op model is the only way.

Thomas

[longbrook]

a quick breakdown of the models that i have come across (i need to get
to bed, but wanted to put this out there...) :

1.0 is what i've found to be sort of a franchise model, or a for-
profit model that is owned and operated as a business, basically the
same as a coffeeshop business model.

2.0 is more of a cooperative effort of coworkers, not necessarily run
by an outside entity, but by the coworkers themselves and everyone
pitches in a collaborates, looking out for each others' businesses.
operates kind of like it's own company, but individual identity is
retained.

3.0 borders on the communal where people share the space (sometimes
even living quarters, as i've found in some european models), and it's
more like a company where everyone pitches in, works on projects
together, shares business and a lot of personal life together.

that's a really quick breakdown of the models that i've come across.
i'll elaborate more at a later time, but it would be interesting to
see if any of these stand out to anybody...

nathan
704.778.0533
www.catalyst704.com

[Tara Hunt]

Problem with THF: Well, we all sat down in a group and 5 people decided to be 'anchors' (or part of the equally paying cooperative). Each anchor would throw in rent + a little for extras and a rainy day. The rent was around $200 each and it was decided that we would each throw in an extra $100 (I think these were the numbers) totaling $300. But when it came time to pay each month, everyone minus two anchors threw in the $200 minimum.

When discussed with people, they didn't want to throw in the extra because they didn't see what expenses justified it. 

I don't know how Eddie handles it today, but when we opened Citizen Space, we decided we would cover the space, hold the lease and charge a flat rate for desks to make it easy. It's been smooth sailing ever since. I prefer the no-hassle of this system personally.

I think in Sonoma, Anthony splits the bills equally between whoever is a committed tenant. It works because if someone leaves, everyone is incentivized to find a replacement. :) However, if everyone was to vacate at once, Anthony may be in a pickle.

T

[felicity at cubes]

No recipe necessary or correct for coworking...each model is taking
shape
hopefully to solve a specific problem. They really don't "categorize"
well.
Even if someone gives you a recipe to follow, yours still will come
out differently.

I designed Cubes&Crayons Coworking purely as a for profit business
venture. Although
my design business still exists, I mainly manage Cubes&Crayons and
write and
speak on work-life balance, (book is in the works)...I have staff to
manage day to
day operations.

-Felicity

Coworking Space: www.cubesandcrayons.com
Coworking blog: cubes.typepad.com/blog
Personal Blog: cubes.typepad.com/cake

[Larry Ortega]

Thank you for all the insight the group provides. Our Coworking group is organized a bit differently. We are setting up an expense model, attracting only “committed” individuals and setting up shop in various cities where I work, mostly in the western USA. It’s not exactly a Coworking space but very similar but on a more sophisticated model. We send referral business to one another with a minimum of $10,000 per transaction. Our group consists of commercial real estate advisors who want the opportunity that RE:Union provides but at tremendous savings.

 

Thanks for everyone’s contribution.

 

  Larry Ortega

  Phoenix, AZ

  602-369-3698 Cell

  602-707-7227 ext 2

  lorte...@gmail.com

  Larry....@reunionre.com

  ReThinking Real  Estate

[Larry Ortega]

Liked your thoughts on this. I am for profit....commercial real estate
community. Thanks for your insight. We purchasing buildings and if you run
into any good deals/ideas, we provide capital for them. Thanks and

All the best

Larry Ortega
Phoenix, AZ
602-369-3698 Cell
602-707-7227 ext 2
lorte...@gmail.com
Larry....@reunionre.com
ReThinking Real Estate

-----Original Message-----
From: cowo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:cowo...@googlegroups.com] On

[Kelly Brown]

Hi Nathan,
You're story sounds VERY similar to mine.

We are launching a for PROFIT business in downtown Akron.
We officially open October 1st -- but are planning an open house on
September 18th.

I have a full time corporate gig and enjoy it - but I am doing this as
an investment and I do see opportunities for this to grow. As others
have mentioned, margins are pretty thin just based on rental
fees...but I see number of opportunities for additional revenue
streams.

Now hopefully, I won't be banned for speaking corporate-parseltongue.

But I think the greater opportunity lies not just in providing work
space but in providing services that a solo-entrepreneur couldn't
afford by themselves. For example, I'd love to throw a secretary 10
names and ask them to get me an appointment for Tuesday..or make
travel arrangements for me...or send thank you notes as follow up.

Independent workers, SOHOs, solo entrepreneurs -- these one person,
two person shops are a HUGE part of our economy. I think the launch
of a coworking space is just the first step in discovering what
services and support this very important demographic need. If we can
help them succeed by providing them with a unique collection of
services that help them grow and support their business -- we can all
do very well here.

The challenge, I think, is to listen and respond.

Kelly Brown
Office Space Coworking
www.officespacecoworking.com

On Aug 8, 11:58 am, longbrook <longbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the course of my research, I have found 3 different models of
> coworking, usually labeled 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 for some reason... I'll
> write some more about these on Catalyst704.com, if you need an idea of
> what the differences are.
>