Download to read offline
Case Studies Final Sub - Communications EP
- 1. CASE STUDIES: AgnesUnderground 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 ofsocially 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 displaysthe 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-WORKINGMODEL 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 theywere 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 usefultoreturn 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 COOPERATIVEMODEL 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 memberstocommit 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 UndergroundandCentralCo-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 FURTHERRESEARCH 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 4http://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