We’ve watched beautifully equipped makerspaces sit idle, while far less impressive spaces quietly produce companies, careers and long-lasting communities.
The difference is rarely the tools. An effective makerspace can lead to new companies, stronger technical confidence, and durable communities built around learning and collaboration.
The most important lesson is this: A makerspace is not a place, it’s a system.
But, again and again, we’ve seen organizations invest heavily in equipment, space design and launch-day excitement only to struggle months or years later. Meanwhile, other spaces with fewer resources somehow thrive.
What separates them isn’t funding or square footage. It’s culture, systems and the often-invisible decisions that shape how a makerspace actually functions day-to-day.
Here are eight lessons we’ve learned about building makerspaces that last, none of which show up on an equipment list.
Equipment-first thinking creates spectator spaces
When tools are treated as the centerpiece, people become observers instead of makers. Over time, machines sit idle, materials are wasted and users begin to treat both the space and the equipment poorly.
Successful spaces emphasize process over hardware: learning, iteration and shared norms. Tools become enablers rather than intimidation devices.
Shared spaces don’t take care of themselves
Without intentional effort, many makerspaces slowly become shared but unowned spaces. Tools are left out, materials disappear and no one feels responsible for the environment.
Responsibility is created through people and systems: clear authority over access, visible staff presence and explicit expectations about how the space is used and cared for.
When responsibility is designed intentionally, the dynamic shifts. Users begin to take responsibility not because they’re told to, but because they feel invested in the space and the people who share it. Community is created.
In our Stephenson Foundation Bio-makerspace at the University of Pennsylvania, community formation and responsibility were deliberate goals. Staff held clear responsibility for access and behavior, modeled expectations and treated relationship-building as part of the work.
As a result, users came to care for the space as something they belonged to, not just something they used.
Staffing matters more than square footage
A motivated, empowered staff member who understands both the technical and human sides of making can do more for a space than doubling its size. Understaffed or undertrained spaces quietly decay, no matter how impressive they look on opening day.
Spaces like NextFab in Philadelphia are a great example, where knowledgeable staff consistently unlock more activity than any single piece of equipment.
Integration beats optional engagement
Spaces that rely solely on drop-in use struggle to sustain momentum.
When making is embedded into coursework, training programs or day-to-day workflows, the space becomes part of someone’s life rather than an optional side activity. Integration creates consistency — and consistency creates culture.
The best outcomes are rarely the original goal
Some of the most successful companies and projects to come out of makerspaces were never the intended result. Spaces that focus on learning and experimentation tend to produce unexpected success. Chasing outcomes too aggressively often misses them.
We’ve seen and supported several companies emerge from makerspaces, which began as side projects with no initial commercial intent.
Sustainability is a design constraint, not an afterthought
Grant-funded launches are easy. Long-term operation is hard. Sustainable makerspaces think early about continued funding models, maintenance, staff continuity and leadership transitions, in addition to day-to-day operations. Inventory management, consumables, safety compliance and staff support are unglamorous but essential.
In our Bio-makerspace, the work that kept the space functional wasn’t acquiring new equipment, but building systems for inventory tracking, staff training and operational handoffs so the space could support users consistently over time.
Getting started on backend organization looks like defining ownership, setting clear operating norms and putting simple systems in place before scaling tools or access.
Culture scales slower than tools
You can buy more equipment quickly. You can’t rush trust, mentorship or shared norms. As spaces grow, the challenge isn’t capacity but rather preserving the culture that made growth possible in the first place.
This is where many makerspaces stumble. New equipment is often added to signal progress or legitimacy, before there’s a real plan for how it will be used, supported or integrated. When tools outpace culture, they don’t expand impact; they dilute it.
Great makerspaces are systems, not rooms
The most important lesson is this: A makerspace is not a place, it’s a system. Policies, people, training, incentives and values matter far more than any individual machine. Ignore the system, and the room eventually stops working.
Spaces like the Engineering Studios @ Venture Lab at the University of Pennsylvania work not because of any one tool, but because of the systems built around how people use them.
Applying these lessons
Over the years, we’ve seen these lessons play out across university makerspaces, community workshops and startup environments: from early-stage experiments to spaces that quietly produced real companies and long-term impact. The patterns are remarkably consistent.
If you’re building, running or rethinking a makerspace, or if you’re wrestling with why an existing one isn’t quite working, we’d love to continue the conversation.
