The first in a series of conversations about the transiency of FoAM bxl. We asked ourselves what we like and dislike about the current situation and what if we kept the studio in uncertain economic conditions.
Times when we liked having the studio includes situations like aperos, smoke & vapour, splinterfields, froesjels, simply entering the space, admiring light and sound, doing small experiments, designing open sauces (publication), etc.
Times when having the studio is challenging includes managing and maintenance of facilities (including mysterious infrastructure), general entropy of a shared space; the heater saga; due to its openness it’s difficult to withdraw to be quiet and know who is in the space; the overhead is too high for a small organisation (especially when cash-flow is problematic); good things keep disappearing, broken things remain.
Making a decision about whether or not to keep the space has been haunting us since 2014. In 2016, the last year of our structural funding we will be conducting several experiments to help us make a more informed decision.
The feeling during and after the conversation was that we like having the space and it would be a pity to lose it, but that it is quite a heavy weight - in terms of maintenance and finances. Giving up the space would still require to rent storage, pay hotel rooms, rent kitchens and meeting rooms, have a co-working desk somewhere, which in the end might not turn out to be much cheaper. Without structural funding and a person responsible for facility management we would have to come up with different models of financing and using the space.
A few suggestions:
The question remains that if we begin making so many changes in the space, will it still be a studio we’d like to have? Furthermore, with all the attention and effort going into these changes, will we still be doing what we actually want to do, and what we wanted the studio for in the first place?
In 2016 we’re planning to test a few of the suggestions in practice, to answer the question: what if we would operate the studio without structural funding? To do that we’ll design three pre-enactments that we’ll run for several months:
The first decision made in January 2016 is that whatever happens with FoAM's plans in the future, FoAM vzw will keep the current contract (ends in 2020). If we can't pay for it ourselves from 2017, we will sublet the whole or a part of the space to one or more organisations. There has been sufficient interest in something like that in the past, so we're confident that we could find a sub-renter without too many problems. In order to give us enough time to find someone, mid October 2016 we will make a decision whether or not to keep the space (or part of it) as a FoAM studio. The decision depends on the finances, management of facilities and FoAM's foreseen activities post 2016. To inform this decision, from February 2016 we will be running (at least) three pre-enactments to find practice-based answers to the following questions:
The experiments will have to prove whether through sharing and renting the space we can resolve our difficulties with covering the overhead costs (~40k per year + hosting fee), the weight of facility management of a shared space and the current under-use (and abuse) of the studio.
The three pre-enactments are:
Renting (parts of) the studio for events and meetings can bring sufficient funds for FoAM to be able to keep the space without structural funding.
The experiment consists of attempting to rent the studio for events and meetings from an hour to several days for groups up to (max) 50 people, ideally not more than 30. In the first three months of the experiment the rentals take precedence over any other activities. In the second three months FoAM activities take precedence over rentals.
The duration of the experiment is ~8 months spread from February to September
The experiment has different tasks:
To do in January:
The studio can function as a flexible co-working space for up to 10-15 people at a time. It is possible to generate enough funds to cover the overhead and facility management costs. Sharing the space with other organisations and individuals will not only bring revenue, but it can beneficial for the work of FoAM. It could bring new exchanges, collaborative opportunities, new audiences and inspiration. We can find a way to share the space and the responsibilities so that facility management will become lighter for the core team (and for Rasa in particular).
This experiment involves agreements with several likeminded organisations and individuals who are willing to share the studio with FoAM. The advantage is that the financial load on FoAM would diminish, we would be in contact with people from different networks on a daily bases, so exchange can happen informally, based on people doing interesting stuff in the same space. The emphasis has to be on trust and true sharing of the space, including both its strenghts and its weaknesses.
Sharing in this experiment means not just using the space, but also sharing the financial costs, management and maintenance of the facilities as well. All spaces and working places are time-shared. This implies a 'clean desks' policy: when you leave, you clean your working space so someone else can use it after you. It is possible to book a working space for longer than a few days, in which case it is possible to leave materials on the tables and on the walls for the duration of the reservation. 'Interesting walls' can stay around for longer.
In the first three months of the experiment all spaces (except the bedroom) would be shared, but the library and coaching room would be designated quiet spaces. It is possible that FoAM would eventually want to keep the mezzanine for ourselves, but this will be evaluated after the first period. We will still have to keep renting the studio for events, so we will have to find a way for these two experiments to co-exist.
We want to keep the co-ordination of FoAM's co-working space to a minimum (as none of us actually want to manage a 'real' co-working space with hundreds of members). We would need to setup simple online co-ordination tools (for things like booking spaces, payments, shopping lists, etc.) and have weekly joint lunches or aperos for face-to-face meetings with everyone (?) involved.
Finances: we will propose a daily rate per person for working in the space. Meeting rooms can be booked at a separate rate (same as in space rental). This rate, if we would have a full occupancy (5 days a week, 12 months) would cover costs for space rental, energy, heating, internet, cleaning, sanitary materials, tea and coffee, basic office materials (paper, pens), “reasonable use” of printers, etc, as well as a fee for a part-time facility manager. It does not include food or special materials.
A critical uncertainty for FoAM is whether we can still 'thrive' in the studio as a co-working space. We have intuitive criteria to test this, which each of us should keep track of:
Candidates for co-working (organisations): Hackistan, SPIN, Edgeriders
To do in January:
If we fully inhabit the FoAM studio and use it to do things we care about, invite people we like working with, rather than primarily administer other people's work, we will use the space to its full potential, the space will look and feel much better than it does at the moment and we will find ways to raise funds to pay for it. In other words, both the people and the space will thrive.
The core team (and possibly some FoAM members) will inhabit the space as a true creative studio for speculative culture. We will define this experiment closer to its staring date in June. The experiment will last from June until September.
Clarity on whether or not we should need to keep the studio exclusively for FoAM, and how we could optimally use it without being drained by it. + Ideas and options to cover the costs without structural funding.