I founded and am still heavily involved in a makerspace that's doing pretty well (8k sqft facility, 4 staff). Focusing on equipment doesn't work, you have to focus on community building. The only equipment that will draw people are the high ticket $20k+ tools, but you have to have the community first to be able to get those grants.

Seek out grants to start a scholarship fund to pay for people that can't afford memberships.

I think a services/pay-for-use model is much more practical for maker spaces. Even people who can afford the tools don't necessarily want to buy it and have it sitting around. I'd it's available for a decent fee to use when you want, then it's a matter of scheduling.

To cover the people who can't afford it you offer opportunities to earn credit or options

I believe the easiest way to alleviate this issue is to pool together capital to buy machines that can’t be purchased by individuals. This encourages more affluent makers to join and pay dues.

That was the business plan of TechShop. It didn't work out in the long run.

In SF, the TechShop space is sort of reborn as https://theshop.build/ Also, https://www.noisebridge.net/ is still cranking along.

What makes noisebridge more successful? It seems like they have a smaller space and less machines than Techshop RIP but host a lot more meetups.

My impression is it's more a community like most hackerspaces, less "tools as a service" most commercial makerspaces are seen as, so people are more willing to volunteer time or resources.

Noisebridge is a non-profit, whereas Techshop was a for-profit corporation.

That would be my guess. Never actually been there, but I get the impression they keep costs very low. More of an old-skool club space than a modernized work space.

This is extremely difficult to achieve, when you actually put the numbers together. Machines are expensive and people do not like to spend money on memberships. You need a lot of paying members, and if you have a lot of members, you get problems with maintenance, abuse, and equipment wear, as well as all other kinds of support costs.

Source: I tried and decided I can't make it work.

On the other hand, gyms seem like such a similar model: the equipment is expensive, but not individually out of reach for most people who can afford to pay membership fees. And maintenance costs / wear and tear are quite high for gym equipment that's shared by many people.

Why does that model work so well for fitness equipment and not well at all for maker equipment?

I really like your question. I’d offer these differences:

- You get access to a wider variety of machines at a gym than you can afford or store in your home. Whereas you probably just need 1-2 3D printers and power/hand tools don’t take up much space. Also, even if a makerspace had a wide variety of machines, non-members couldn’t tell you what those would be or what they’d necessarily do with them, unlike a gym.

- Working out takes 30-60 minutes. Making something takes whole evenings; that’s a lot of time to spend out. Classes are shorter but have the problem where only novices and moderately interested people want to do them.

- Working out in a room with others is social and motivating. You’re surrounded by people who look like what you’re working toward, etc. Making things with others is also social, but fewer people are used to tapping into that as a motivation to create. And highly accomplished makers aren’t usually as attractive as people in peak fitness. :)

That assumes the more expensive machines provide enough value over their cheaper counterparts for those users to care. Keep in mind that industrial machines tend to be more complicated to use as well.

Why don't you use stuff more powerful than can be owned by individuals? I.e., stuff that's regulated. Then they'd have to come by your place.

what industrial/scientific equipment do you think has regulated ownership?

Lasers, and you can't get certain chemicals without s business