My gut feeling that this is the fundamental discussion between a hackspace and a makerspace…
In the end, it all comes down to the same thing: Make awesome/amazing stuff.
To me a hackspace(/hacker culture) is about the journey, while a makerspace(/Maker Culture) is about making stuff!
VHS is about both and both concepts can (in my humble opinion - imho) co-exist within the same space.
People come to VHS to explore “stuff”(/technology/things), while also being the platform to create/make stuff. (Hacking vs “pure” making.)
I’ve discovered that sometimes it’s not just about the getting it done right (making), but sometimes it’s just about the “creating/making” aka the hacking of things!
Admittedly, hacking takes the longer route. Mostly because it’s uncharted or new territory (by improving on existing designs), but it doesn’t take away from the creative element of making/creating.
Disclaimer: It’s late, so I might not word it perfectly, but I base these/my opinions how I’ve always explained hacker- vs maker culture in my tours of the space. (As well as on VMMF and other trade shows.)
Every step on a journey is, itself, a journey with a destination - it’s fractals all the way down. If you go up it ends at destination.
Pure research (hacking) is great, nobody knows what will come of it or when it will pay off but it can lead to really exciting and novel discoveries.
The rent is paid with classes, organized events, and providing tools that everyone can use to get things done (making). Look at how many people joined just to use the laser cutter, and how quiet the space got when the laser was down.
I don’t see a point in differentiating between maker and hacker (the way we use the term). Hell, the first line of the wiki page for hackspace you linked is “hackerspace (also referred to as a hacklab, makerspace or hackspace)” (italics mine).
I’ve discovered that sometimes it’s not just about the getting it done right (making), but sometimes it’s just about the “creating/making” aka the hacking of things!
what’s the point in classifying and trying to divide the audience? I’ll say that I’ve made things that where not done “right” and I’m damn happy with them. There’s been some pretty hilarious workarounds and shortcuts applied to many of the things where I care about the outcome.
To me the difference comes with how I casually refer to them:
Laboratory (hackspace) - “Hey, yea I’m just down at the lab, I’ll be there in 20min”
Workshop - Makespace - “I gotta get down to the workshop and finish the last component of project Doombringer”
Research & Development; hackspace leans toward research, makespace leans toward development. Both with healthy overlap.
As stated above, perhaps it’s not necessary to point this out but it’s obvious in the way two examples in Vancouver are priced and perceived (VHS & Makerlabs).
I’ve learned that the word lab(oratory) hits home right away for people new to the concept. The elevator speech I use: [Hackspace] - it’s a non-profit member owned & operated community laboratory.
Personally I feel the line “make awesome stuff” is more of a tag line for a makerspace and “do awesome stuff” would be more appropriate for a hackspace. Implies activities at a hackspace can be more abstract but aren’t strictly so.
In reply to Jon in regards to a divide, I see it more as, providing this distinction clarifies purpose to members and encourages a perspective that being a member of both is complementary and not redundant.
I don’t feel the intent in Vancouver is to have competing spaces but cooperating spaces so arguably without some level of distinction, they are both perceived as the same place, just a different flavour. This would inevitably lead to an arena that our model could easily be starved out.
Fundamentally, I believe there is a reason beyond price and quality of tools that motivates VHS membership. Otherwise, we likely wouldn’t be growing and people wouldn’t hold multiple memberships to other spaces in the city today.