If not today then within the next couple of years a lot of very serious are going to be asking the question. Should “capital” follow makerspace development? Last week, the Brookings Institute started the conversation when they published a short article on their blog called, “Early-stage venture capital: More regions get in on the action.”
As the title suggests, the Brookings’ article talks about the relative value of population and/or population density in funding decisions. What was missing was any discussion of creativity or the impact that creativity has on return on investment. There is a lot of money floating around the economy that is producing very low yields. Just look at the stock market.
The availability of money is not the issue. The availability of creative energy needed to put that money to productive use is what’s missing. There are always industry tourists who are more than willing to use rent-seeking to separate an investor from their money. Rent-Seeking is not what’s meant by creative energy. It’s not the kind of creative energy that makerspace development produces.
Makerspaces Development is by its very nature about empowering a larger creative class. The result of this effort is a higher density of creative energy. The kind of creative energy that leads to productive economic activity. Also, fulfilling the promise of makerspace development will mean that more new industries will emerge from the noise (i.e. marketing hype).
More viable new industries mean better return on investments. Everyone knows that early adopters are the most profitable new customers. Consequently, every subsequent product generation yields lower profit margins relatively. This is why capital should follow creative energy and makerspace development is easiest way to find high yielding creative energy.