It seems like using "most successful" companies as a rubrik for decision making doesn't make a lot of sense, given how unlikely it is that any company will make it to the "most successful" categorization.

There are some tangible benefits from working out of a coworking space (I'm not sure you are advocating an opinion one way or the other regarding them):

- easier access to networking events. Certainly you can make the trek from your office over to where the event is, but there is an extra level of convenience.

- Access to other people. I was the only technical founder on our team, and just being able to talk shop with other engineers had real value. For the business guys, they were able to talk with other business guys and swap ideas and information.

- Manufactured Serendipity. This one is a bit of a stretch, but if you are around other startups, there is a small chance that something lucky can happen. Is it going to move the needle? Dunno, certainly more likely to happen than if you were alone in a garage.

None of these things should take away from what I think is the important aspect of an office: allowing people to work productively. If that part isn't there, then no amount of perks and benefits will matter.

There are tangible costs to working in a coworking space:

* It's significantly more expensive.

* It's distracting.

* It creates an endless font of excuses to "network" and "talk shop" instead of powering through the schleps.

* It colocates serious companies alongside fundamentally unserious ones, leaving the serious ones to filter requests, drama, networking, &c.

For me, cost is dispositive. Put burning cash up against abstract benefits like "serendipity" and "talking shop" and I don't have a hard time making that decision. Last company, we wanted to talk shop too. We started a meetup. It worked fantastic. Do that!

Erin and I are signing a lease on the office for NewCo today. The space is depressing. We're in Oak Park to begin with, a 35 minute walk from my house, and you'd have to look to find an office with a window staring out onto a brick wall. We have two of those. It's perfect.

There's a time for spending some cash to make your work space pleasant. But not in the early days. Unfortunately, that's what coworking spaces optimize for.

> It's significantly more expensive.

When it's only the founders it isn't really more expensive especially when you factor in cleaning, food, coffee, etc. If you're growing beyond the founders then it probably makes financial sense to get your own office.

> It's distracting. > It creates an endless font of excuses to "network" and "talk shop" instead of powering through the schleps.

Only as much as you let it be. Put on headphones and get work done.

> It colocates serious companies alongside fundamentally unserious ones, leaving the serious ones to filter requests, drama, networking, &c.

To a certain degree but you're grasping at straws here. Don't want to talk to someone? Tell them you have work to do and don't talk to them. It's really not that hard.

Of course I can't speak for everyone. Some people simply can't adjust to working with other people around. Personally I prefer it, I find it inspiring.

No. It is significantly more expensive. I'm not saying this in the abstract. I just got a 2-person office for my new company, and I know what 1871 costs. 1871 is expensive. Office space in Chicago is not expensive. I'm actually paying slightly more to be walking distance from my house in Oak Park, and I'm still cheaper for 2 people than I would be at 1871. The difference would be even more stark if we had gotten an office in the Monadnock, where the company I'm leaving next week is. And the Monadnock is a historic landmark building with an Intelligentsia on the first floor.