The building is not the business model
A location can be attractive while the operating model remains unproven. Surface, accessibility, visitors, residents and programme mix affect property occupancy, innovation synergies and public value in different ways. A feasibility model must translate the same site into variables relevant to each stakeholder rather than rely on one blended story.
Agartha Hub is an exploratory concept organised as Discover → Learn → Build → Live: a phygital marketplace, courses and seminars, incubation, founder accommodation in or around the building, and a digital layer connecting the journey. No site is currently confirmed.
This framework is a validation method, not a property announcement, procurement procedure, investment offering, valuation or promise of partnership.
One Hub, five economic layers
Each layer needs its own payer, unit, price test, direct cost and capacity constraint before synergies are consolidated. Gross marketplace volume is not Agartha revenue. Possible future equity value is not operating cash. Public funding enters an engaged scenario only after formal award.
| Layer | Revenue to test | Direct economics to isolate |
|---|---|---|
| Phygital marketplace | Net commission, seller service, exposure, events, digital services | Payments, returns, logistics, staffing, loss and support |
| Courses & seminars | Paid seats, B2B workshops and room use | Facilitators, materials, AV, reset time and sales |
| Incubation | Cohorts, mandates and formally funded programmes | Programme team, mentors, tools and reporting |
| Residence | Night, stay or referral/operator economics | Cleaning, linen, energy, maintenance, commissions and tax |
| Digital layer | Membership, services, marketplace, content or licences | Hosting, payment, security, support and moderation |
Prove the problem before the place
Map founders, companies, educators, sellers, residents, institutions, users, payers and prescribers separately. Document current alternatives, risks of duplicating existing Geneva organisations, willingness to pay, mobility, local flows and the cost of the current gap.
A non-binding expression of interest can qualify demand, contributions and constraints, but it is not a contract or revenue. Regiosuisse highlights preliminary strategy and feasibility work, accessibility, regional complementarity, education links and sustainable operations as relevant factors for new workspaces.
- Name one problem and one payer for every target segment.
- Test a price and format without suggesting that a site is secured.
- Separate users, buyers, partners and beneficiaries.
- Record which existing organisation already serves each need.
- Use the EOI to open dialogue, never to imply selection or commitment.
Run the Hub before owning the Hub
The Hub Lab can test the operating system through temporary formats: a paid marketplace pop-up, seminars in partner rooms, an incubation cohort in an existing venue, accommodation only through an authorised operator and a lightweight member portal.
Measure conversion from interest to payment, accepted prices and discounts, use by hour and zone, direct staff cost, repeat use and cross-layer demand. Benchmark occupancy can provide context, but the relevant threshold is the one produced by Agartha’s actual fixed costs and contribution per unit.
A Swiss Regiosuisse evaluation of Hub Neuchâtel documents both diversification and dependency: coworking and support programmes contributed differently to the model, public support and volunteer work mattered, and the scope evolved. It is a specific case, not an Agartha forecast.
Make every layer survive a transparent model
Build a monthly profit-and-loss and cash-flow model with low, base and high cases. Keep taxes, working capital, deposits, fit-out, contingency and ramp-up visible. A consolidated positive result must not hide a structurally loss-making layer unless a named funder has formally agreed to support it.
| Formula | Use | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Layer contribution = net revenue − direct variable costs | Compare formats without blending gross flows | Exclude unawarded grants and future equity value |
| Break-even units = fixed costs ÷ contribution per unit | Translate overhead into required paid activity | Use the prudent contribution case |
| Break-even utilisation = break-even units ÷ sellable capacity | Test whether the required occupancy is feasible | Capacity must reflect downtime and operating limits |
| Residence RevPAR = average rate × occupancy | Compare accommodation scenarios | Hotel context does not prove founder-residence demand |
| Funding need = lowest cash point + contingency | Size the downside before commitment | Not an investment solicitation or approved budget |
Make the site pass the model
For every candidate, verify permitted use, change-of-use requirements, room capacity, fire safety, evacuation, accessibility, food and retail operations, delivery and waste, accommodation rules, energy, acoustics, digital infrastructure, fit-out quotes, lease guarantees, indexation and exit conditions.
Geneva’s official process notes that a venue may require a building authorisation or change of use, and distinguishes occupancy documentation around the 100-person threshold. Swiss fire-protection prescriptions are mandatory. Energy and accommodation constraints require separate checks before any definitive works budget.
Residence remains a separate legal and operating workstream in the base concept. Contracts, safety, accessibility, pricing and occupancy risk should sit with a qualified operator unless another model is explicitly validated.
Allocate every risk, then open in stages
Write who owns the property risk, programme, operations, data, CAPEX, OPEX, accommodation and each formal decision. PropCo, OpCo, mission programmes and residence may require different responsibilities; the final structure is not predetermined.
Open progressively: marketplace and event pilots, recurring learning formats, incubation cohorts, residence only after separate validation, then a deeper digital layer. Use Go, Adapt, Pause and Stop gates rather than opening every floor because a building is available.
| Gate | Required evidence | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Demand | Paid pilot or qualified non-binding commitments | Continue, reposition or stop a segment |
| Layer economics | Net revenue, direct cost and contribution per activity | Retain, redesign or fund explicitly |
| Cross-layer value | Observed referrals without double counting | Keep only demonstrated synergies |
| Regulatory / site | Use, fire, capacity, access, lodging, energy and works review | Reject or condition the candidate |
| Downside | Monthly P&L, cash, CAPEX and contingency | No irreversible step if downside is unfundable |
| Governance | Written responsibility for asset, operations, data and decisions | Conditional agreement only after allocation |