This document provides case studies of two social entrepreneurship models in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood: Agnes Underground and Central Co-op. Agnes Underground is a for-profit coworking space that offers flexible membership plans. Central Co-op is a consumer-owned food cooperative that operates according to cooperative principles and gives customers the opportunity to become owners. Both aim to serve the community, but differ in their structures - Agnes Underground is owned by a development company while Central Co-op is owned by its customers. Interviews with representatives from each organization provide details on their operations and the challenges of maintaining democratic processes and community engagement. Comparisons are drawn between the models' approaches to representation, opportunity creation, and how members participate in

1. CASE STUDIES: Agnes Underground and
Central Co-op
Models of Social Entrepreneurship
Ashley Propes
Models of Social Entrepreneurship
Dr. Tiffany Espinosa
2/10/2014

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
The essence of socially responsible, bike riding, vintage shopping,
and coffee drinkinglifeis immediately sensed as you enter the Capitol
Hill neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. This trendy and vociferous
neighborhood has the presenceof the wealthy, modest, young, old,
somber, flashy and all of the in-between. It is Seattle’s most densely
populated neighborhood with 11,722 peopleper squaremile.1 The
community has many uniqueand progressive characteristics, but it is
not freefrom all social concerns.
The fight for space to rent, space to play, and space to work have
become recent issues dueto the abundance of new construction
projects. The already highly populated community isgrowingat
noticeable rates, causing the locals to voice concerns for their space and
sense of community.
Fortunately there are multipleorganizations and groups within
the neighborhood addressingaspects of these concerns. Looking to
these groupsas social entrepreneurialmodels, wecan compareand
contrast how they exist, what challenges they address, and how they are
crafting a sustainable neighborhood.
Social entrepreneurs arepioneeringstrategists movingforward
with approaches to the challenges and unmetneedsof a community.
Through the application and blend of traditional business models, non-
profitmodelsand original platforms, modelsof social entrepreneurship
take form. Looking to Agnes Undergroundand CentralCo-op asseparate
examples of social entrepreneurialorganizations located in Capitol Hill,
we can begin to better understand whatelements are in place and how
they are being used to initiate a sustainable business structure with
qualitative and quantitative measuresof success.

3. 3
This map displays the short distance from Agnes Underground to Central Co-op and their location
in the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

4. 4
CASE STUDY 1: Agnes Underground
BACKGROUND
Agnes Undergroundopened their doorsin
February of 2012 asa project designed from
the Seattle based developmentcompany Dunn
& Hobbes.2 Agnes Underground isashared
workspace offeringmembership through various plans. The startup
business is located in the basement of the Agnes Lofts on the corner of
12th and Pikein Seattle, WA. Founder of Dunn & Hobbes, Liz Dunn was
inspired to create the open workspace after experiencing co-working
culture at the Hubin
London.3
Projects established by
Dunn & Hobbes are known
for reusing certain aspects
of existing buildingsto
readapttheir use to current
needsof the people and the
city. Their mission is to maximizeurban living conditionsby creating
workable and livable spaces. It is their intention to create “urban
villages” and in doingso they approacheach project with the following
objectives4:
 to express strong design values that help “raise the bar” for quality of
architecture and urban design
 to contribute something unique to a neighborhood while respecting and
incorporating its existing fabric
 to enhance the experience of living, working, shopping and playing in an
urban environment
Agnes Undergroundoccupiesthe space that was historically the
Balagan Theater and fulfills the innovativeapproachto recreating space
as functionalfor the existing needs of the CapitolHill neighborhood.
Through the recent assembly of Agnes Undergroundthe community
gains the opportunities and advantages of collaborative space.
“As the Capitol Hill neighborhood has
become more densely populated in recent
years, the lack of creative, affordable office
space has become a growing challenge for
many. The Agnes Underground helps fill
this void by offering space to individuals,
and small groups, on a month-to-month
basis.” -Agnes Underground Press Release

5. 5
USING A CO-WORKING MODEL
Agnes Undergroundisnotthe only example of co-working space in
Seattle. The Seattle Collaborative Space Alliance (SCSA) is a local
organization bringing peoplefrom the community together to support
and promotethe useof shared workingspace. SCSA helps members find
a place to best supporttheir interests and foster their creativity. There
are currently 24 separateco-working spaces within the city of Seattle
and 5 of those are located within the Capitol Hill neighborhood. With
the philosophy of findingthe best
place to promoteyourself as well as
your business, most of the spaces
offer uniqueapproachesthat keep
them from being in direct
competition with one another.
Assistant property manager at
Dunn & Hobbes, Erica Bechard helped iron out questionsas to how
Agnes Undergroundworksas a uniqueco-workingspace. Duringa
guided tour and interview I had with her, she uncovered the benefits of
membership and what to expect on a day-to-day
basis.
I arrived early to our interview and as I walked
into the faintly lit pastel space, aromasof coffee burst
through the air. BeforeI could spot the caffeinating
station my eyes landed on a few cushy beanbags,
green shag rugs, and a dog curled into the corner. I
couldn’tquite figureout how I would accomplish
anything in this seemingly “retro” place, but the
atmosphere was oddly tempting. I grew curious to
understand how acup of coffee and a few beanbags
created a workable setting.
Bechard explained how the environmentwas
created to stimulate productivity throughsimple
comforts. The open floor plan prevented the sense of
enclosure. This helped to encourage organization,
opposed to cluttered and distracting corners. I could
feel how it served to steer the senses away from the
stressfulstreets above. The dim lights wereone of
my favorite featuresof the physicalspace, however
“The SCSA shares the core
values of co-working:
community, collaboration,
openness, sustainability, and
accessibility” –SCSA Philosophy
This list shows the
current members of
Agnes Underground.

6. 6
Bechard stated they were notthe original lights they had planned for. A
few months after openingthey decided to switch out the original
fluorescentlighting for the dim-track lights. Although the co-working
space does nothave a committee to ensurethese collective opinions,
Bechard said it was a simplemutualdecision.
Wethen discussed the costs and benefits of
joiningthe space. Bechard said many members
approachjoining as a way to get out of the coffee
shop and into a collaborative space. In most
cases, members pay less per monthfor a flexible
desk space at AgnesUnderground than they
would for a daily cup of Seattle’s high priced latte
or cappuccino. Alongwith the membership fees
for a day desk, monthly flex desk, or a fixed desk,
all members have access to the conference
rooms, kitchen, coffee machine, fitness bikes, and
wireless Internet.
My finalinquiries wereto understand the
means Agnes Underground wasworking withto
create “intentionalcommunity” or if this was
something they were interested in creating.
Bechard explained quite clearly, the new
business hadn’t had the time or resourcesto plan
and generate an outreach calendar of events. She
also mentioned the natural organization of
outings members coordinateon their own, and
how this waswhat they were interested in
promotinginstead of a “forced hangout.” She recommended Ilook to
other co-working spaces if I wanted a weekly calendar of events.
Set pricing for Agnes Underground
desk space, amenities and services.

7. 7
ANALYSIS
It is usefulto return to developer Dunn & Hobbes’original
objectives for creating the co-working space when analyzinghow the
space functions. AgnesUnderground’sstructuremodelshow they used
their planningvaluesto “raise the bar” in urban design and architecture
by turningthe large vacantspace into an area of thriving enterprises
and individuals. Thecommunity and neighborhood benefits from the co-
workingmodel on various opportunisticlevels. Local restaurants and
coffee shops are gaining afternoon business while the residentsof the
community gain access to a place to work beyond their distracting home
offices and local cafes. The location of Agnes Undergroundisanother
featurethat promotesthe usefulnessto the structure’sencouragement
of an urban village dueto the excellent access it has to multiplemain
bus routes.
The membership fees are oneaspect of the co-working modelthat
may hinder the extension of reaching out to the community, however
Agnes Undergroundisa for-profitorganization that does notmislead
their customersinto a return of monetary investmentor financial
assistance to those who cannototherwise afford the space. The
inclusion of membersis open to those who can pay for the space and for
those who enjoy what the space gives to them in return.
I would critique this modelof co-workingin its efforts to promote
intentional community when comparingit to calendarsand events of
other co-working spaces. However there are culturaldifferences from
one city to the next, as in oneneighborhood to the next. It should notbe
assumed that all co-workingspaces seek to create a formalcommunity,
but they create the space for the community to gather and promote
itself. Office Nomadsis another co-workingexamplein Capitol Hill. After
talking with Erica about events, I feel Office Nomad’s following
statements may hold true to the mentality of what the neighborhood is
in search of:
“Wedo not create community, wecreate a strong platform on
which community grows. Webelieve in co-working without a
filter. Our community is strongwhen it is diverse.”5

8. 8
CASE STUDY 2: Central Co-op
BACKGROUND
The desirefor local foods, products,
and space is more than a trend in Seattle Washington; it is a way of life.
The city is trading high fructosecorn syrup for high quality baked
goods, prepared on multiplelevels of local. The community isreturning
to the corner store rather than the super-sized marketsand alongside of
this comes the locally sourced foodsstocked on their shelves.6 The
CentralCo-op has been a part of housingthis movementsince 1978,
after becoming one of the first food cooperatives on Capitol Hill.
Throughout yearsof constant marketchanges and mainstream
food demands, Central Co-op claims to have retained their structureas a
cooperative by adoptingthe internationally recognized Seven
CooperativePrinciples.7 These principlesare as follows8:
1. Voluntary and Open Membership
2. Democratic Member Control
3. Member Economic Participation
4. Autonomy and Independence
5. Education, Training and Information
6. Co-operation among Co-operatives
7. Concern for Community
CentralCo-op functions as a consumer owned cooperativemodel.
Customers have the opportunity to become shareowners through the
purchaseof membership. The currentpriceof membership is $60, with
the option of paying$5 a monthuntil fully paid. Once a membership is
obtained, the individualis from then on referred to as an owner (or until
they sell their share back if desired). With over 12,000owners, Central
Co-op generates 24 million dollarsin food sales.
Through a democratic structure, the Co-op desires to generate a
community driven marketwhereproduct, people, and placematter
most. Their motto is: Stronger Together.
Central Co-op Mission: a member-owned natural
foods cooperative in the heart of Seattle dedicated
to sustainable practices, community accountability,
and the local food economy.

9. 9
USING A COOPERATIVE MODEL
CentralCo-op is structured as a cooperative, dedicated to serving
customers, owners, community members, community partnersand
neighboring businesses. The tiny food marketis located at the
intersection of Pike Street and Madison. Upon walkinginto the Co-op,
one is immediately welcomed by the scent of fresh garlic and fragrant
oils. The tight concrete and wooden shelved space offersno room to
shop two by two, but the customersweavein and out with smiles on
their faces and local products fillingtheir carts.
After reaching out to CentralCo-op with questionsof democratic
structureand member motivations, I was putin touch with community
outreach administrator, Webster Walker. Duringour interview Walker
quickly ran through the history of the Co-op and the exciting 35 yearsof
businessthey had justcelebrated. He waseager to discussthe updated
outreach programsand changes in member benefits. He also elaborated
on his role at the Co-op and how his job required him to “keep his eyes
and ears open.” Recognizinghow owners usethe Co-op demands
attention to the details outsideof surveysand forums.
I questioned how the Co-op maintained a democratic tone
throughout each decision and in daily routines. Walker’sresponsewent
beyond answeringthe trend of
CentralCo-opsconsumers; he
dovedeeper into his
interpretation of our society’s responseto participation. He said that
beyond shoppingand “voting” with their dollars, ownersfollowed the
trend of being comfortable without being engaged, so longas everything
was runningsmoothly. Quorum percentages wererecently lowered for
voting purposes becausethey were experiencingdifficulties meeting the
required minimum. Walker stated they were not the only co-op with
this issue.
CentralCo-op’s Board of Trustees work hard to determinewhat
programsand member benefits will best engage the community of the
Co-op, but participation is inconsistent, making it difficultto track the
measureof social impact/return. Walker mentioned that while the Co-
op can evaluate their financialsuccess, they would like to expand to
measuringthemselves against a triple bottom line approachin order to
provethe standardsthey are holding themselves to.
“It’s an impossible fight to meet
quorum.” – Webster Walker

10. 10
ANALYSIS
The cooperativemodelencourages membersto commit to
remainingactive and presentin the politics of the co-op. It is extremely
importantfor shareholders to expresstheir concernsas well as their
comfortswith the co-op because it is the only way in which change for
the community can begin to occur. Walker stated he is incessantly
encouragingmembersto vote, speak, and act about what they care
about most. He said again and again, “it is their marketto shape”. In
particular, a consumer-based co-op has the element of “voting with your
dollars” and this encourages or discourages certain trends to occur in
the market. Central Co-op has a core base of programs, benefits, and
even a departmentof employeessuchas Webster Walker, dedicated to
outreach and inclusivecommunity.
The reciprocal relationships created from a cooperativeopen the
door for inclusion of all community members, creating strength in
numbersand diversity. Programssuchas the Healthy Community
Program atCentral Co-op allow for membersof the community who are
struggling or do not have the resources, to join as an owner without
cost. This plan helps to ensurethe Central Co-op is truly servicing the
entire community it exists within. The resourcesand uniquesolutions
for community presence offered by cooperative modelssuch as this are
what truly start to bridge the gaps of disparity and community
representation.
The most concerning aspect of the Co-op is how membersof the
community approachtheir democratic rights; it creates a lack of
ownership on their part outsideof their initial investment. I would have
guessed members would bemore active, vociferous, and supportiveof
their local market in this neighborhood. Perhaps it indicates their trust
in the Board’sdecisions.

11. 11
COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS
Agnes Undergroundand CentralCo-op areboth in search of
providingservicesand platforms to help sustain the individualsand
community of the CapitolHill neighborhood. The social
entrepreneurship modelsthey useto reach their objectives are
distinctive from each other; still they create worthwhile contrasting
points along with notable comparativequalities.
Agnes Undergroundisa for-profit, co-workingorganization
seeking to promotethe creative space for local business and individuals
to thrive and unite. CentralCo-op is a collaborative food market also
interested in promotinglocal businesses. They have the capacity to do
this through featuringlocal productson their shelves.
Opportunitiesfor expanded representation and multiplying
potential are created from both models. Agnes Underground marketsa
local businesswithin the co-workingspace and generates
representation throughout the smaller network of interconnected
businesses. Central Co-op can place local produceand merchandises on
their shelves that will give consumersthe chance to try it, creating
opportunity for both initial and expanded exposure.
The correlation of becoming a part of a community and creating
the community you becomea part of contrasts in both context and
relationship with each of these models. At AgnesUnderground thespace
is owned by landlords, Dunn & Hobbesand can be rented with the
purchaseof memberships. Democracy of decisionsand inclusion is not
their centered philosophy, although they promoteand encourage
collaboration within the members of the co-workingspace. The space is
there, as a platform for community, buthas no specification on the
representativeprocess memberscan gain to recreate the community
once they become members. CentralCo-op operates as a consumer
owned collaborative, returning a portion of their profitsback to their
shareholders based on patterns of consumption. Democraticand legal
relationships come from buyinga share of the collaborative. It
encourages members to actively participate in the democratic
commitmentof the model, allowingfor the shareholders to genuinely
craft the community they are a partof through shared rulings.

12. 12
IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The pointsof intersection between the two modelscross over and
over again, but it’s important to remember their contrasting points as
well. The intersections are what allow for them to function successfully
within their community. Bothorganizationsare fulfillinga niche in the
densely populated neighborhood. The importanceof differentmodels
within the same community can be further acknowledged as a highly
effective way to sustain communities. Multiplemodelsrefrain from
creating a greater divide. Instead they turn to oneanother in abstract
correlations as they close the gaps of the community’sunmetneeds.
Researching how organizationscooperate, collaborate, and
coordinatetheir efforts to grow forward together without creating a
competition for the same resourceswould be a topic for further
research. I would question if organic relationships mold out of a
community’ssocial issues or are partnershipsa deeper element, taking
place behind the scenes.
I would also investigate how cooperatives around thecountry
engage their ownerson a regular basis. I sensed the genuine
frustrationsof Webster Walker as he said he often times had to refrain
from growingangry with peoplefor not participating more, because it
did not mean they cared less. I would explorewhy members join, why
they stay, and why they remain silent.
CONCLUSIONS
The research here is limited to exploringfeatures of two specific
organizationswith separate social entrepreneurship models. Thegoal
was to investigate the ways in which social entrepreneurship
transcends boundariesof traditional modelsof business, where success
is measured by economic capital.
Through research, interviews, and comparingmodelsto each
other I felt a stronger sense of what social entrepreneurship could look
like, act like, and react to. Learningthe avenuesof how factions such as
Central Co-op and Agnes Underground build their bridges, presentsto
the community, and myself, aworthwhile approachas to how
sustainable futures are designed by modelsof social entrepreneurs.

13. 13
NOTES
1 http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Capitol-Hill-Seattle-WA.html
2http://www.dunnandhobbes.com/press/hood/Agnes_Underground_Press_Release
.pdf
3 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/business/apps-make-the-most-of-spare-
time-in-a-strange-city.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=agnes%20underground&st=cse
4 http://www.dunnandhobbes.com/about.php
5 http://officenomads.com/join/
6 http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2013/09/big-capitol-hill-names-behind-cone-
and-steiner-grocery-market-project/
7 http://www.centralcoop.coop/history.php
8 http://ica.coop/en/what-co-op/co-operative-identity-values-principles