They are structured as a for-profit LLC. They appear to rent (and also simply lend) storage space and studio space and equipment as well as host events. They appear to have bootstrapped through a mix of self-funding, grants for the arts, and "pay what you wish to pay" donations.

There are many ways such a "cultural" business can make money. A similar organization ("The Crucible") elsewhere in the same city sells classes in things such as how to cut steel with a torch or how to run a milling machine. They can sell commissioned works (which is not quite but is close to what NIMBY appears to do in relation to the Burningman festival). They can produce recorded media (e.g., videos of events) and monetize those.

The Burningman connection is probably key. As you probably know, Burningman is famous for all of the fancy art projects that show up each year. Well, a lot of those - and a lot of the best ones - come via businesses like NIMBY. For example, a talented but relatively poor artist or team won't have to, say, buy a router or rent a garage to build their project, or pay cash out of pocket for a structural engineer to go over their drawings - if they can just get in good with NIMBY or a similar place. NIMBY gets back some of their operating expenses in the form of arts grants from Burningman. It's a win-win-win-win: Burningman leverages their grants; the NIMBY hackers have fun and gain influence; the artists get opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have; the "public" gets the art!

It may turn out to ultimately either fail or be simply a "lifestyle business" but I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out bigger than that.

I think it must look very odd compared to the kinds of startup we usually hear about in Y Combinator land. After all, they seek grants and plea for donations and there's not a price list or an (overt) 3rd party ad in sight anywhere on their site - right? But, that's the nature of the modern, urban, "punk"-ish art scene. Most of their work-product is either temporary or ephemeral - not quite the kind of art where you go to a gallery and buy pieces off the wall. They are unlikely to start running ticketed events because turning people away for lack of funds would diminish the value of the brand.

I would make an educated guess that the LLC itself won't ever be better than break-even, by design. Any profit will likely go into capital investment or (pie in the sky, down the road) grant giving. Note that two of the three listed "uber-volunteers" who run the show have day jobs (one with Burningman). Not to be at all cynical about it but an artist / maker / creator / whatever who wants to invest blood, sweat, tears, and/or treasure into something like NIMBY and wants to see a return on investment is likely to take that return independently, leveraging their association with the brand, the (slow-depreciating) capital equipment and real estate resources of the LLC, and the social networking opportunities the LLC helps to foster.

So it's not a startup of the sort that will show an exponentially growing balance sheet and afford the investors huge payouts or an exit strategy. In that sense, it is probably forever to be a "small business". But it's a small business at the nexus of larger money flows.

(The idea goes very far back. One famous example from the 1960s/1970s is Andy Warhol's "Factory".)

And now that I've explained all that (which is kind of "common knowledge" around here but I can see how it would be less obvious to many) -- it makes me wonder if a similar model wouldn't make some good sense for free software R&D of one sort or another.... The model doesn't quite translate directly (e.g., there is no Burningman raking in lots of money and issuing a lot of grants) but maybe there is something analogous enough... Hmm.... ponder, ponder...