From my knowledge of and participation in hacker spaces - I would say this is it. My understanding is hackerspaces like the L0pht were not paying exorbitant real estate prices, and had a core of founders making decent enough money to pay for the place. On the other hand, some hacker spaces start out very ambitiously with a large space in the center of an expensive city, without as much of dedicated, close, core team to sustain it, and those did less well. Also - when you have a small core team and expenses are too high, it causes friction and stress in the core team, and people want to participate less.

other examples of a successful maker spaces are Springfield Telescope Makers in VT and Amateur Telescope Makers of Boston. Both specialize in telescope making and observing. Both clubs have a pool of people will to teach, a core of people maintaining and developing observatories and the clubhouse, and best of all, cheap real estate. Now if we could just get that Harry Potter light putter-outer when it is clear.

Those are both very cool, but I would argue they aren't maker spaces. They seem like telescope making clubs.

yes they are but they characterize one of the aspects of a successful maker space. Focus on a particular part of making. These clubs also have all the same tools plus some specialized ones that any maker space would have.

My local library offers 3d printers, a mid-high end laser cutter, soldering stations, sewing machines and lots of tools.

It lagged behind the library of the next town over, but is now comparable.