However, our location was near downtown, and the 20-something geeks were both afraid of downtown and would rather pay $40-$60+ per day to have a chair in a WeWork space in Hollywood or Santa Monica. It did not make sense, so I tried spending a week at each of the more popular co-working spaces, and learned they were not occupied by geeks or "real" startup people, but wealthy 20-somethings playing a startup game, dating one another, and with zero serious intent other than wasting their parent's money.
I learned to be a success as a co-working space, one needed to create a "dating safe play pit" for white wealthy 20-somethings. I have zero interest in that.
I live in Santa Monica and would love a space like yours. But going between the westside & downtown -- particularly during rush hour -- just isn't reasonable for a regular thing. It'll take easily 1hr+.
I had hope the Expo line would help, and while it does a bit, its current speed still makes it a long journey, timewise.
I would love to hear more about your experience.
If you want to run a successful hackrrspace in LA, you've got to find a way to make the hackers contribute to the effort. One of the best ways to do this is to have regular open-house events, promoting the contributing artists forward, and thus demoting those who freeload. Form a real community around those who contribute, and dissuade freeloaders.
(Disclaimer: ran a hackrrspace in LA for 10 years, had a hell of a lot of fun, but also experienced immense frustration at just how some folks, who take so much space and creative energy, contribute nevertheless so little...)
Droplabs started as a web developers space centered around developers using the Drupal CMS. But it soon diversified. I myself was working on my own startup, a animation VFX tech startup. There were periods where the place was packed, but over all not enough to justify the effort. We were not trying to earn a profit, we were trying to create a tech creative community. Simple enough, during the period of Droplabs, the economy overall was not there to grant people that much free time or free income to be active in such a community.
This means that, unless you want to be a slave to your own business, you'd better have $50k a year minimum passive income in a cheap town to "give" to the business, plus $100k-$500k to set up the space, plus enough money to live on for yourself, or it's not worth it.
And forget about ever making a profit, even if you do work there every hour it's open.
He told me they make an overwhelming amount of money off of the tasting room attached to their physical brewery because the beer itself is effectively water in terms of cost so they make profit by not having to pay any middle men in the tasting room.
My suspicion is that in the coffee world, if you source and roast your own beans and serve them direct in a venue you own you get a similar effect. I think it must be essential to run the roastery yourself to make it work. That work goes well beyond what is required to just open a cafe and serve someone else’s coffee.
Starbucks has simply insane process automation, training, branding, marketing, custom drink labs pushing out new flavors every two weeks, complete control of their global supply chains.
It would be more accurate to ask: “How the F can anyone make any money when Starbucks is on every other street corner and has the advantages of scale they have.”
Source and roast your own beans, don't overroast the beans, charge a premium over Starbucks for not producing crap coffee from overroasted beans. Starbucks does some impressive work with the candy flavors it adds to distract from their coffee, but...
Curious then why Starbucks doesn’t adjust.
Is it something in the scale manufacturing, such as, more margin for error in the overroasted side, so taste will be the same signature burnt at every Starbucks in the world?
Is it that their market is former fast food coffee drinkers used to bland and burnt drips from McDonalds who will try a Starbucks, find it so ‘robust’ (ahem) as to be obvious, and that’s the end of the experimentation?
There has to be a data driven reason.
Poor quality beans and robusta are ‘hidden’ with a dark roast as the flavour moves to bitter. This also lasts a long time and doesn’t go stale for ages. As a general rule in coffee, light roasts have a variety of tastes and dark ones are just bitter.
This saves a lot of money. Low quality arabica beans are less than half the price of good ones, and that’s for me, purchasing a few kg at a time. Starbucks will be using a lot of low grade robusta and that stuff cheaper again.
Combine this with a brand which makes coffee where the dominant flavour isn’t the coffee but the milk (if you can call miscellaneous juiced nuts etc that) which is often flavoured. I don’t think the coffee will be their primary cost in consumables, I’m guessing milk is.
If you want to have a play, get a heat gun and a kilo of beans. Have a play about with different roast styles. It’s a slippery slope but it isn’t an expensive one.
Edit: Here is a link with a breakdown of Starbucks costs. Not sure how accurate it is, but it puts the coffee as 16c per cup, and the milk at the same. The cup itself is about 32c according to the article.
Like, once a Starbucks drinker goes out and buys a heatgun to roast their own beans they will discover the truth that has been hidden from them all along.
I always just assume that someone who drinks Starbucks regularly would be the most aquainted with how it tastes and might not need someone to tell them.
Making a consistent product year over year with inconsistent raw materials, in high volume with wide distribution, and maintaining prices most people can afford is very difficult.
Sure you can get better coffee if you spend time doing research and sourcing beans and roasting equipment, but that doesn't mean there is no place for Starbucks in the world.
On the other hand, Starbucks keeps spreading to smaller cities. So they seem popular with someone at least.
The people complaining here aren't the average Starbucks customer.
For example, burned coffee is more of a caricature of its normal taste unlike, say, burned popcorn which tastes like charcoal. You could probably tell most people including me that some burned coffee is some local artisanal roast and I'd chalk up any changes in its flavor to that and move on.
People clearly just aren't making coffee purchases based on taste, so you have to liken the whole thing to people going to bars. At which point Starbucks is simply the well-known bar in town with no surprises. You know their hours, you know where it is, you know you can get a table and dominate it shamelessly for hours, and so do all the other people in your group.
Sure, you'd like to try one of those lil cafes around the block sometime, but it's something you procrastinate just like anything else that will introduce the slightest change in your life.
That said, Starbucks is obviously popular with a lot of people. Personally, I think their coffee and some of their other drinks are fine. I don't always go there (not that I'm a coffeeshop regular) but that's for reasons other than their coffee quality. (I admittedly tend to use darker roasts when I make coffee at home as well.)
> It would be more accurate to ask: “How the F can anyone make any money when Starbucks is on every other street corner and has the advantages of scale they have.
Specialists stores have specialist profits - they wont be hitting the mass market, because the mass market taste profile is different.
If you try to grow, then you may as well give up to starbucks which has the money to taste test and advertise enough to ride the wave of human attention.
Starbucks coffee tastes like crap to me and the reason is they chose crappy quality beans and then over roast them.
$15 lattes, anyone?
You can have a preference of reds or whites but anyone who's trained can taste when a wine has oxidsized or turned sour and those are pretty objective statements of fact.
Overroasted coffee is definitely a thing if you've done coffee tastings and actually know what coffee tastes like and how the roasting process affects flavor profiles.
No, it's an actual answer of one way that a number of relatively small and some fairly large coffee shop chains can and do survive when Starbucks exists and is ubiquitous.
It includes, of course, an endorsement of the taste to which those shops appeal as part of that strategy.
Coffee snobs like those downthread notwithstanding, most people don't care. I don't care most of the time although I try to frequent local shops for the variety. So anything that gets a lot of people to default to Starbucks, especially for a morning caffeine fix habit, is a win.
They tend to sit out over a heat source and, if the coffee wasn't lousy to begin with, it is after it's been burning over a flame or other heat source for an hour or two.
(not a native English speaker myself, and I tried my best to interpret your difficulty).
This is also true in the United States and yet here we are.
I don't know what to take from that though with regard to what y'all are arguing about, I can't really explain the economics of it all. But I think it's a fact that at the point Starbucks was expanding to be national, it was not true that most places it was expanding to had plenty of places where you could get a much better cup of coffee at a comparable price. Starbucks actually brought "coffee culture" to most of the U.S. (if it wasn't them it would have been someone else, this was when "foodie" culture in general was becoming a thing, people with enough money to were becoming more interested in 'gourmet' everything).
The fact that now, in 2018, it's possible to easily get high-quality coffee in Australia is not a complete explanation of why Starbucks is not popular there, since the same is true of the United States.
It's worth pointing out Starbucks has several competitors in the cafe-chain space in Australia. There are cities in Australia where Starbucks tried opening & then closed down because they were unable to beat the local incumbent cafe chains.
I suspect some Aussies haven't heard of this cafe chain, even though they have twice as many stores as Starbucks, and now have cafes internationally.
I'm particularly excited that Gloria Jeans is launching 40 stores in Germany soon , and also 13 stores in the UK next year .
(We don't have Starbucks in my city and I loved Gloria Jeans so much that I bought shares in the parent company, that's why I'm so interested in information about coffee shops & competitors. So far it's been the worst share investment I made though, the shares have crashed 90%!)
Why the secrecy?
But my general point was less about this specific chain, and the idea that your profits may come from a part of the business that you're not known for. You then use that money to subsidize the other parts of the business. A bit like how Sony Corporation's profits come from life insurance & medical insurance, while their electronics division makes a loss.
I bought a toothpaste from a store but I feel like I shouldn't disclose the name of the store for their privacy. They're a private company!
A poet / artist space will be lucky to have a few dozen people come in every day.
They also have regular musical acts. The Athens/metro Atlanta area has a lot of cover bands.
> That's 3.65 million a year- that's absolutely enough to support rent, part time employees, and a nice profit margin (~10 - 15% on average).
Exactly this...which means Starbucks can then negotiate exclusive volume pricing from their provider/vendors anywhere in the product chain and force them to sell cheaper to Starbucks.
After you have best spots in city where a lot of people come add optimizations of supply chain or owning a supply chain.
Moderate stores are doing around 25k/week. Stores below 10-15k/week tend to be at risk of shutting down or having the location changed. A 15k/week store can become a 30k/wk store just by getting a drive through.
There is also a distinction between “community” stores and higher volume profit stores (eg by highway entrance). Community stores get to be a little less profitable but build a “second home” for those in the community to hang out at, while non-community stores bring in profit by being in a high traffic area.
There is a new coffee shop in the Digbeth area of Birmingham UK that appears to be family run and independent. I shall keep an eye on how they are going. Already there is a '10% student discount' sign on the window in felt-tipped pen (Birmingham City University have their Steamhouse project nearby).
Also, martial arts schools.
I think at this point is almost a rite of passage - if you want to teach you do it because you like it, not because you expect to profit from it.
Of course, the economics of your area also apply.
A reason for getting into sports coaching is the same as for any other addiction, you reduce your own costs by becoming a pusher.
Now I have my inlaws teaching taekwondo in rural Michigan and that’s definitely not a profitable endeavor. More a labor of love.
I still don't understand quite how they did it. They did have a small permanent staff of an executive director, financial director, and a couple maintenance people. Everything else was done by mainly college-age membership that, as I said, turned over almost completely every two years; they were the board of directors, maintenance, collected membership dues (the equivalent of rent), made major investment decisions (buy a new house?), etc. etc. One contributing factor may have been that it was a bunch of intelligent people, self-selected for their commitment, who had little long-term vested interest (they'd be gone in a couple of years). I might expect the latter to be a disaster, but it also eliminated a lot of politics - nobody had a career, a future, a promotion, a reputation, or much ego depending on the outcomes.
Based on your links, I'm pretty sure you know about the ICC. Any thoughts on how it, and similar organizations work, where others that require community commitment, like the bookstore in the article, fail?
As a legal structure there isn't a ton of support, you are basically creating a member managed LLC or corporation and then transplanting a cooperative agreement on top of it. Getting the same level of commitment from a large number of people is the difficult thing. But if there is a small sense of joint ownership and a shared vision then perhaps it could work but as the article mentioned rotation of leadership and task assignment is a good idea lest one person be stuck holding the bag.
I also agree with the OP (and you) that forced rotation of leadership is a great idea, for a variety of reasons.
But to be sure, starting a small retail business and succeeding is hard no matter what. And starting a _collective_ enterprise is hard no matter what too (for different 'political' reasons, even if it has no budget).
The catch, if it's a catch, is that you have to have at least 7 people and there's no way to be "in charge" if four of them think you shouldn't be.
The _board_ will be individually liable for gross negligence or criminal malfeasance, same as any corporate board. The members are no more liable than shareholders in any other corporation, ie virtually none. (Beyond losing their equity completely, of course).
The arty passionate person five years later has an entirely new perspective on every single aspect of their venture.
When someone asks me about starting a business, I say, “exactly why?”, “what is is you really want from this, do you know?”. You’d be surprised st how few people are really clear on what they actually want the outcomes to be in a tangible way.
My advice is to create any business that makes money and do your passion as a hobby.
There’s another thing.... people starting their first business generally don’t understand the importance of cash flow. They don’t want to know, they’ve got no reference point in their head to understand it. Nothing you can say will bring them to understand the importance of cash flow. In a years time there will be those who grasped it (might still be in business) anc those who didn’t (out of business).
I don't want to be negative but there are two life rules (not just biz) that apply here:
- If it were easy, everyone would be doing it
- Making it look easy is very very hard.
Pardon me for stating the obvious ;)
(and that's why, imho, if you have nobody to give (yep, "give") you the amount of money you need, you'll never ever make it; that's a very unequal world...)
I feel for this person(s). But they didn't do their homework. That is on them.
That being said there is a lot of toxicity I've seen coming from other spaces. Noisebridge on Mission St. is the first to come to mind. That being said it's still around and kicking!
- they are run by volunteers (no paid staff)
- they have some sort of arrangement where they don't have to pay rent at market rate
If you rent a space and hire someone to keep it open, you need a lot of money coming in...
As you say you could hardly make a more hazardous environment if you tried. Wooden pallets for stairs?!
It was a grossly negligent situation. The whole place was brimming with wooden crap mixed with electrical junk for lights and sound. Words can't do justice to how much of a tinder box it was, the photos left me speechless when I investigated back on the day of the fire.
How shitty of a landlord can you be that you wouldn't prioritize people's safety.
A Hackerspace in Germany was proud of its smartphone-activated door lock.
I was less impressed on their open house event when I saw firsthand how they struggled to open it for several minutes (with no mechanical override on the inside!), while dozens of guests were there.
When I voiced my safety concerns they simply didn't seem to understand. I mean it's just a fun hack, right?
In British, I never knew what they were called ("those 'Push Bar To Open' things on fire doors"), apparently "panic bar". As Wikipedia says, "In Europe, the use of panic bars is generally confined to code required applications. On the other hand, in US and Canadian commercial building design panic bars are frequently used even when not required by code."
The only place I see them is designated emergency exits, the type which are normally unopenable from outside and often alarmed. The main doors leading out of a large auditorium don't use them – these don't need to lock, so they use free-swinging doors. The emergency doors at the front/side would use them.
Also that's crazy about that smart door... Pretty sure that's against fire code if it's one of the only exits. Ignorance isn't an excuse when other people's lives are concerned, either.
I think you guys are just talking past eachother due to a disparity of definitions, and otherwise are actually in agreement.
It's the usual question on how to balance the trade off between safety and freedom. I myself am more inclined towards the latter.
It looks cool/arty, and OK to wander through in an afternoon, but it also looks like the last place I'd expect to find a party.
The closest place I can think of for a similar labyrinth of clutter is Camden Stables Market in London . But it's a daytime clothing, art and antiques market, not an event space. You can see the green emergency exit signs in some of the photos; doors have notices things like "This door to be open during trading hours".
For your tradeoff, how low do you propose we go?
 Camden Town has several markets. If you've been, this is the one you're least likely to have visited, and it's furthest from the station.
In Hamburg we have really nice planetarium. Recently a guy in a wheelchair wasn't allowed to just attend the show sitting next to a seating row because in case of a fire he might block the corridor and who would be able to quickly evacuate him? Of course the reasoning makes sense but where do we end up when everything needs to be extremely safe or is otherwise forbidden?
This development is a systemic effect which cannot be stopped as far as I can tell. The desire for freedom will be satisfied simply by people refusing to be super strict in practice. Also too many regulations usually will be harder to enforce.
Apparently not, according to the history of such things.
A big part of running an art gallery is being available for people who want to look at art. Some of those buy, some of them spread the word.
In the end a small number of people are going to keep your gallery alive, if it stays alive. But you have no way of predicting who they will be or whence they will wander into your space. That VP of Sales in town for a conference who only has Wednesday afternoon free and is starting a collection of $YOUR_SPECIALTY.
(I'd love to see the source if you have one, it would probably contain other useful info.)
"The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”"
I love this kind of spaces.
This is how I would advise to do it.
Art/literature - create high quality, high ROI product offering first. Hand bound collectables for example. Low cost digital counterparts. Find niche online first. Crowdfund, test.
Have the publishing first. That's raising capital. Profit/Non-Profit no real difference if you have income. Just don't rely on grants and voluntary resources (economic volatility will hit these first). Physical space: make it enchanting (design/brand/service/experience). So that people would want to pop in regardless of products. High ROI food: coffee, tea, pastry, nibbles, smoothies and such. Food=energy. Sell local energy (economic volatility will hit this last). Innovate. Constantly change the furniture, accessories - sell them. Both online and at the physical space. Think of it as a curated space. Assess risks particular to the location/niche. Have contingency. Have another contingency for risks that are unknown.
Anyone planning to open something like that - happy to give some more specific free advise (tangible products/interior- service design/branding/marketing/economics).
> Consider being a for-profit.
> If you’re going to have a public space, try to find a cheap place you can buy and own.
I have, for a few years now, really wanted to start an art gallery, or at least something similar to an art gallery.
I've looked into the local equivalent of a nonprofit, and I've considered renting a super cheap space and keeping irregular hours and bla bla bla.
But I keep coming back to the idea that I want to really be in charge, even though I think it'll never make any money; and renting a loss-leader lifestyle storefront is a great way to achieve untenable fragility and poof it disappears at your next personal downturn, taking a chunk of your net worth with it.
I have no idea if I'll ever pull it off, but I'm increasingly attracted to the idea of forming an LTD and buying the cheapest space I can find... someday. Maybe in ten years.
In the meantime I am considering trying to do a pop-up version, which might be a stupid idea but would certainly be a learning experience and not have any recurring costs. The pop-up idea is, I think, useful for any kind of creative thing that doesn't require much equipment.
I've been running a small space for the last 4 years, and it's lost a lot of its magic for me. I used to have high hopes of inspiring others to create. It's very rarely like that. Many times it's cleaning up others messes, or fighting to grow with no resources.
Once in a while though, someone's eyes light up when they see the possibilities in the waterjet or laser or 3D printer...
Sometimes it's worth it. Most times it's not.
I don't understand the logic behind this. Wouldn't not being independently wealthy rather imply attempting to be for-profit?
Even if I had the time, money and expertise I would never do something like that. These days you can't even ban assholes without everyone making like you're the one with a problem. And even a single person with a grudge can make you more problems than anyone can reasonably deal with while having a life.
That's been true since always. Speaking as someone that was in that position within a few online communities back in ~98 or so.
Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
So, hopefully the attempt will be sufficient -
<speech boilerplate "want to protect my family, need to keep you informed, if you arent going to get off of the net, then you need to be prepared">
1) Humor is being used to weaponize and radicalize people. A significant group of people who identify as alt right were first introdcued to the ideas via humor. Please be careful of off colour humor. You and me may think it is a joke with no bearing on reality. But there are people who think that its not a joke, and that the ideas behind it
2) Be ware whatsapp - I'm in India and there is a spate of lynchings in rural areas because of whatsapp forwards. People have been killed because they are suspected of being child abductors.
I've personally seen the videos and they are horrific, they include videos of a live child being gutted - but its a gang video from mexico. Another video depicting an abduction, is from a child safety video in Pakistan - theyre spread between maids, drivers, auto-wallahs and office workers.
An Indian state has tried to grapple with this problem by direct communication with the villages, by using drummers, warning people to not trust forwards. Tragically one of the people paid to inform people was himself killed, on suspicion of being a child abductor.
3) Increasing polarizaiton - What started out as mild jokes are expanding into massive cracks in the fabric of my world. A North/South Indian divide has grown from an occasional joke, to an often oozing wound. Online media carries no tone or body language; when people interact in this impoverished environment, our brains end up responding to the strongest emotional versions of a comment. Small fights end up creating lasting grudges.
So don't EVER forward anything mildly polarizing and divisive.
4) Dont trust emotions - almost ANY item which generates an emotional response in you, should be treated as suspect. The best way people have to get you to stop thinking rationally, is by making you think emotionally.
Other things that come to mind are fake news, and the nature of the media formats to keep people on it, and the entire behavioral science behind it. (Skinnerian conditioning, reward schedules, the network effect, responsive design, social approval and so on).
A good point to bring up is depression, and the fact that material on social media is biased, few people talk about an average day or a terrible day or embarrassing things. Humans were not designed to be seduced into believing that the world is great for everyone else and average for me.
For the normal person listening in good faith, any one of those points is sufficient to create a sense of discomfort.
But ultimately, the main driver is the fact that most people are already uncomfortable with social media and are sitting on a pile of bad experiences.
I don't have facebook, but I find I'm very pressured to use it and instagram for work related promotion...
I think the biggest problem is the addictive nature of it, followed by the self-esteem erosion. Does staying in contact outweigh the drawbacks?
That's the big question so many of us are struggling with these days!
I would say, if you're not already on FB/IG, DO NOT join. A long time ago many of us thought the commercial / exploitative side wouldn't be so bad, and it wasn't so addictive in the early days because it was harder to use.
And now here we sit, feeling like this is probably a bad idea, but unwilling to give up our "friends" for whatever reason. In my own case, it's because there are a bunch of people I really care about IRL and probably wouldn't keep in minimum touch with otherwise. Or maybe I would... I used to write letters, and the postal services still exist.
I find I use Instagram a lot and Facebook not so much, but every once in a while even FB provides a lot of utility. I find IG a very positive experience, at least for me, at least when I don't think about what Zuckerberg is doing with my data.
I think if the right 20% of my FB contacts left for another, less compromised service; and that service had an IG-like function, which it probably would; then I'd close my accounts. Or ghost on them, since I don't think you can make them actually delete your data, even under GDPR.
Consider yourself lucky, and stay away for personal stuff by all means. If you have to create accounts, do it only for your business.
The secret: paywalls. Only truly dedicated crazy people are willing and able to spend a hundred bucks on annoying people.
It’s still an interesting site, and stronger financially than a community space, just vulnerable similarly.
Invite only spaces. New members have mentors who are responsible for them. Anyone can be expelled for any reason at any time.
It's amazing how much the tone changes when someone is on the line for breaking a 10k machine and having to pay for everyone else using an equivalent machine commercially while they get it fixed.
Does that imply that if you vouch for a new member that you are also expelled if they are or share the cost of their fuckups?
Invite only. But any member can hand out invites.
If there's a trend however that you invite the wrong persons I think you can get banned or punished somehow yourself. Edit, exact rules: """There's no limit on how many invitations a user can send (though that might be prompted by scaling problems in the future). When accounts are banned for spam, sockpuppeting, or other abuse, moderators will look up the invitation tree to consider disabling their inviter's ability to send invitations or, rarely, also banning. """
Also there is a public list tree on the site of who invited who: https://lobste.rs/u
Will still end up being a problem if the intention is to preserve the original vision.
Mentors change over time, and 2nd and 3rd generation members (mentors of mentors etc) will form gangs and have their own ideas of how things should be.
Non-violent communication practicing communities find their own ways to split into fractions -- for it's the clash of egos, ideas, aims, and private interests that create conflict, and those won't disappear by decision or fiat to avoid them.
I've been chewing on an idea. Please bear with me.
A friend's MBA thesis (WIP) is on the business model of evangelical churches. How the players build their flock, manage the brand, shape the culture, revenue, run their meetings, etc.
Kinda eye opening.
I'm even going to church again, a new one every few weeks. To gleen the strategies and techniques that have been hiding in plain sight.
One of the volunteer orgs I work on (with?) is game. We've started making some changes, just to see how it plays out.
If I could share one takeaway:
The Field of Dreams "Built it and they will come" strategy doesn't work.
Non-profits, communities, etc. need as much intent and effort as any other startup to succeed.
Of course there's a church planting industry, conference circuit. https://exponential.org
My friend's thesis is descriptive, not prescriptive. I've been struggling to harvest actionable advice. These resources will help. Just having the right phrase ("church planting") helps.
We prefer to play with decentralized voluntary forms of organization. Would love to get in touch with your friend, especially since we're trying to do things using a "give what you can that we need" business model.
could you elaborate on "why" ?
All it takes is a few days for a community to turn toxic. The communities that ban people preemptively work, the ones that give them the benefit of the doubt don't.
A point of the article should be that if you have to work insanely hard on your business and have to rely on volunteers or people like that, you need to not be in the business in the first place. Don't sink money to it, and just do something informal with people you trust; let them come over to use the tools in your own private workspace.
A high point for me was getting my site ddos'd and ssh brute force attacked when I decided to run a course in another hacker space after being stuck for committee approval for 3 months. The saddest part is that I knew it would happen and scraped the site into a static html site served from nginx from a box that would could only be administered through a two hop tunnel. Then the guy who I know did it went around stalking me on social media telling everyone I ... I'll actually take my advice and just leave it there.
If you have the time look up the girl who ran the first tumbler. She's hilarious and had a few talks about this stuff. As well as some really great advice on how not to build robots.
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
In the HUD model, you hand out housing to poor people. Sometimes they take care of it and prosper, but usually not. Places get trashed, fixtures and copper ripped from the walls, and that's the end. You get "the projects."
In the HFH model, recipients must have jobs, references, and commitment. They get ongoing support from HFH and the community, who come to help build their house. The recipients actually buy the houses with low-rate mortgages, plus they need to put in some sweat equity with HFH either working on their house or someone else's, or on a committee like fund raising. The result is a homeowner who takes pride in their house, who has the connections and support of their neighbors, and who is more likely to elevate the community, including neighbors who didn't qualify for HFH.
There are some lessons here for a community space.
Consumer cooperatives (which are actually legally _owned_ by their members, via member shares in the coop corporation) have been doing this forever. Like the famous (both loved and hated) Park Slope Food Coop [grocery store]. The Park Slope Coop simply calls it a "work requirement", and it is "2 hours and 45 minutes once every four weeks."
The Park Slop coop is famous for crazy internal politics, so a work requirement is definitely no magic bullet against such. The Park Slope Coop is also loved by many though.
Well, isn't that the default mode of "hobby revolutionaries" on everything?
They are clueless. It's like when developers on HN share all their ideas about being a manager and what's required.
What you say is very true, except when your team is a bunch of people who positively don't want to grow, they just want the paycheck and the minimum trouble possible. You're basically managing to make sure the comfort zone doesn't grow. And that's as tough as it is boring.
I have nothing against the comfort zone, that's perfectly human. But not every team member want to grow.
(me realizes that maybe I has a cultural issue with the company :-))
What I can offer for those who aren't motivated are a few things.
1. It starts at the top. If you make yourself the top then it starts with you and you get to set the tone. A crappy boss can make a great job terrible. A great boss can make a crappy job manageable with some moments of happiness.
2. Find what drives them. Few people are okay with the status quo. This requires building trust with your people and regular communication. If you can find out what makes someone want to do more and grow you're golden.
3. If your job has growth and people just don't want it, find better people. Jobs like this typically have high attrition unless it's something like government, military, or some other rigidly structured role. If that's the case and you want more, look elsewhere. There's almost always someone willing to pay more for someone who multiplies their team's output.
Whatever your journey, I really do wish you a fulfilling and enjoyable life. A lot of times things, especially now, can seem fatalistic or just downright bad. A single candle in the dark can light the way for many others. :)
I hear you. But to be fair can we generalize less and say __some__ people?
I'd also venture to say that the internet has educated more people in the art of self-expression. Like any art, doing it, and being good at it are two different things. Simultaneously, we're over stimulated, and have become less tolerant of "feedback."
I certainly not going to dispute The A-hole Factor. One of the reason I had shift from B&M retail + ecomm to strictly ecomm was I lost tolerance for being what amounted to an underpaid therapist. That was close to 20 yrs ago. I can only image the current state of things.
We could, but seemingly, if you've been in these situations, it's close to "all people".
One has to be an exceptional, way above average artist before making himself a brand. Actually, a branding follows being exceptional.
That's a big problem right there (all the bureaucracy that has creeped up for having a space or shop etc, a lot of it which didn't exist 30 and 50 years ago). If the place is inspected regularly, and is as it should be (e.g. have fire extinguishers, etc), NOBODY should be charged with anything unless they did something (like throw gasoline at the crowd).
Shit happens. If adults burn in a building, it's a risk they should be willing to take when stepping it, the owner is not some nanny to prevent all natural and unnatural causes from ever becoming dangerous....
The place hadn't been inspected for decades, and didn't have basics like a fire alarm, multiple staircases, or a suitable electricity supply. People who had warned the owner of problems had been ignored.
> Shit happens. If adults burn in a building, it's a risk they should be willing to take
Ridiculous — those adults aren't in a position to evaluate the risk. Are they supposed each to check the fire alarm works before entering, or just ask to see a certificate showing the building has been inspected recently? Can they do a flammability test on the staircase?
And what about the 17 year old who died?
Did you just want to restrict this to the Ghost Ship fire? I only used the quote as a starting point, I don''t intend to talk about the Ghost Ship fire and its particular circumstances.
I'm talking about the creeping codes and bureaucracy in general, and I've already said that inspection is OK. Just not the piling of risks and litigation to the people running the place for every little thing (that goes beyond fire hazard etc, to stupid stuff like someone slipping on the wet floor and suing).
>Ridiculous — those adults aren't in a position to evaluate the risk
They wouldn't have to evaluate any of those things if the place had been properly inspected (as I say in my comment).
If it's "not inspected in years", it's the state that should be put to blame, not the owners.
As a rule, you don't kill 36 out of 50 people without putting some effort in.