This is a CTP of initiative: FabLab 4 (East England)
This CTP refers to the ongoing decision made by the co-founders to avoid developing further relations with the local university, beyond that of landlord.
As described in CTP4, the makespace leased their premises from the university, taking over the workshop space formerly inhabited by the Institute for Manufacturing; and in doing so garnered the support of senior officials. However, rather than incorporating fully into the University (as spaces such as UCL’s Institute of Making have done), the co-founders intentionally remained independent:
“We do have the general support of high level people in the University, and they are the space’s landlords. But we decided not to be part of the University itself. People do ask us why we aren’t doing that, and we could have done that. We [two of the co-founders] are both alumni from the School of Engineering, we could have found a way to make it work”.
Instead, the co-founders decided to incorporate as an independent non-profit entity who were limited by guarantee. This permitted them to operate as a company – thus obtaining corporate status – whilst being financially supported by members, and able to re-invest into their own operations rather than distribute their profits amongst members.
This decision was made when the premises were acquired in late 2012, and was scaffolded by the development of the membership and business model which the co-founders developed together. This funding model permitted a degree of freedom from the university, and independence for the organization. The makerspace was incorporated as a non-profit entity at the end of 2010.
This CTP was shaped in part by the long-standing politics of the “town/gown” divide between Cambridge University, and city’s the non-academic community. These dynamics are common to other UK university towns, particularly those with long-standing and established universities (eg. Oxford, St Andrews).
“Town/gown” term broadly describes the tensions between the two populations, which can sometimes even adversarial as different communities with different priorities and resources share the same limited space. From the perspective of the “town”, universities can generate traffic, reduce quality of neighbourhoods (or even destroy them as campuses expand); and drive up land and property prices as highly educated workers are drawn to university workspaces, sometimes at the (perceived) expense of developing major employers for local, non-university, workers.
These qualities are particular pronounced in Cambridge, which is a small town dominated by the university. As one of the co-founders described:
“From talking to people, we knew we had to keep it separate from [Cambridge] University. Some people are from the other university in Cambridge, because there is another one – Anglia Ruskin – and they were really keen to get involved. Normal people felt alienated as there’s still a really big town-gown divide here. If the makerspace was a university thing, some people would not feel as included”.
The decision was also supported by the decision of the co-founders to run the makespace as a company limited by guarantee, rather than a Community Interest Company (CICs). CICs were created by the British government in 2005, designed for social enterprises that intended to use their profits and assets for the public good. However, the co-founders were unsure about whether a CIC structure would be right for them, or whether they would be able to make this structure legible to outside parties – as explained in previous CTPs, the makespace was already unusual in its local environment by dint of not being a for-profit entity:
“CICs were new then, and we didn’t really know how they worked, or want to have to explain everything about them on top of everything else. [But] we didn’t want to be a charity as we didn’t think we could come up with appropriate charitable aims”.
Instead, the company decided to register as a non-profit company limited guarantee for greater flexibility and legibility: “Non-profit companies look like a limited company, which people know how to deal with”. This company structure is targeted at non-profit organisations that require corporate status, but has no share capital or shareholders. Instead, profits are retained to be reinvested (rather than profits distributed); and members who will contribute a nominal amount to settle any debts in the event of the company closing. In this way, members of the company are protected from any personal liability for the company’s debts. This was then scaffolded by the membership model which supplanted the money donated by local companies with regular monthly members dues.
The result of this action was that the makespace was able to make use of university spaces (at extremely low rents) and draw on the support of senior academics, whilst maintaining financial and organisational independence.
This CTP was shaped by factors including the long-standing politics around the “town/gown” divide of the local city; and the decision by co-founders to run the makespace as a non-profit company limited by guarantee.
The co-founders did not describe any contestations or difficulties around this CTP – instead, as described above, its intent was to reduce tension and mediate some of the politics around the town/gown divide in Cambridge.
This CTP was seen as critical by co-founders, as it determined – through their independence – both the capacity of the makespace to determine future strategic paths; and develop, from the first, a distinct identity as a independent non-profit organization. The consequences of this CTP – that the makespace would be able to build an independent community which was inclusive of both “town” and “gown” communities – were both forseen and came to pass. It is difficult to identify what would have happened in the absence of this CTP. As described in other case-studies, tech shops embedded into universities have experienced extensive levels of material, financial, and symbolic support – whilst this makespace certainly received such resources from donors and the university itself, these resources may have been magnified if the organization had chosen to affiliate more closely. However, they may have also experienced the converse and challenging effects, such as being stymied by the university’s existing infrastructures and platforms; and being limited in the types of networks and communities that they could sustain.
This CTP was vital in meeting the organization’s transformational aims around inclusivity. As detailed in previous CTPs, the co-founders were clear from their early work that they intended the space to be as inclusive as possible, so that anyone could come and “make stuff”. This CTP complements additional decisions such as pricing structure (to make the space economically equitable) to consider the cultural and political environment of the city in which the space is located.
As described above, this CTP was constructed into the wider timeline by the funding model which permitted the makespace to be sustainable and independent after the initial donations had been used; and was developed drawing on the research conducted by the co-founders as described in CTP1:
“We thought about business models and worked out what types of costs would work. The gym membership or monthly membership model seemed to work for other spaces, and we knew that the space wouldn’t always be full. Part of the model was so that people would keep paying.
The CTP also permitted the makespace to construct additional networks beyond the university. As the co-founders explained, whilst membership had grown steadily, there was a “fair bit of churn from Cambridge [University] people who come and go” (mirroring the experiences of other tech shops that were attached to higher education spaces). By carving out some degree of independence from the university, the makespace was able to create a more embedded and sustainable community in the local city.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
