Thank you for your series. Important factual information that clearly shows a new 3,000 capacity at PSU is not needed and is likely to be counterproductive.
Hopefully our elected officials are paying attention!
Mr. Misar’s arithmetic is sound, but the deeper problem is that the Hudson study points to a one-venue market without naming the loser. That silence has enabled the City to act as if both Keller and PSU can coexist, when the analysis itself suggests they cannot.
This has been a terrific series...and it illustrates this town's reluctance to deal with reality, encapsulated in this sentence: "Nevertheless, it recommends expansion in the form of a new 3,000-seat venue on the PSU campus." If that isn't Portland for ya, what is?
This is a small city that has always tried to punch far above its weight. It was fueled by too much money in too few smart pockets, and the idea that those Smart People™ could produce a mini-New York on the Willamette. Anyone who got in the way was bulldozed (which is what Albina One is all about, with their utopian promises) and why almost every pol collapsed when a subprime mogul threatened to yank our Big League team...as if that would affect the average Portland person in the slightest.
And now, when we really need the Smart People™ to stand up to the amateur revolutionaries and their spooky backers out east somewhere, they're silent.
Just our luck. It turns out that theaters are a metaphor for dreams that always seem to turn into nightmares.
I take a stupid lesson from Sim City, in that there is (or was) a tipping point for growing cities to invest in arts and sports facilities to cater to the entertainment demand of it's growing residential base. When the Keller was built in 1917, live theater was still in strong, active demand and a profitable investment for producers. But, whereas sports franchises on both a national and collegiate level have grown over the latter half of the last century, the performing arts have done nothing but shrink. So consumer demand for live entertainment in a 3,000 seat venue was much greater when the city invested in that facility than it is today.
It is clear that demand has dropped remarkably, even since the mid 60s when the City decided to upgrade the Keller as part of it's first adjacent urban renewal project. More to the point, private enterprise (two of the Portland'5 largest and sustained booking clients) have decided to stop leasing municipal space and build their own venues - paying themselves a lease fee per tour booking.
My chief goal, when considering this series, was merely to show my fellow citizens exactly how idiotic City decisions have been and continue to be investing in real estate to provide theatrical venues not in leasing demand to local companies that cannot afford to lease them. This evidence shows how absurd adding a new venue at PSU really is. Sadly, the public are ignorant to all of this and local media (excepted here) choose not to expose these facts, but disseminate municipal misrepresentations via press release instead.
It had been my hope a dialog might grow to challenge the absurdity of the proposed expenditures. Clearly, without vocal public outcry, the City bureaucrats, in association with a handful of woefully under-educated (in the practice of business and financial management) elected officials - will bulldoze some insane version of their proposal through.
In the meantime, did anybody notice that PSU has had a completely predictable drop in enrollment and is now suffering with a budget crises of it's own? So, when the campus is rolling with money problems - this must seem a good time to gift them a new theater. And, did anyone ever check to see how well-utilized and in demand the current campus theaters are?
Lincoln (475 seat auditorium) and Hoffman (400 seat-flex space) Hall both can serve theatrical events. Admittedly, Hoffman (a lecture hall) would require some added stage, lighting and sound installation to operate as a theater. But, this is within the schools common assets to provide if desired. And yet, Hoffman is virtually never used as a theater space by any independent arts organization (and it is for lease.) Lincoln Hall appears to get booked most weekends during the school year - used by the theater, music, opera and dance departments. But, my money is on it also being under-utilized parts of the school year. End of semester appears to be when it gets most use.
I guess my most impractical desire is to see that a municipality operate like common businesses do - that it operate real estate and it's connected services at a profitable point to break-even, covering it's costs including retained earnings for projected and foreseeable asset replacement and upgrades. I do not understand how we public, owners of these assets, allow them to manage these at a constant loss, offset by other City income sources (taxes and fees - which will now be shrinking), with no effort to be competitive in this finite marketplace. Why aren't managers salaries (or at least incentives) tied to financial growth and stability? These are the greater questions I think about in this series.
Thank you for your series. Important factual information that clearly shows a new 3,000 capacity at PSU is not needed and is likely to be counterproductive.
Hopefully our elected officials are paying attention!
.
They aren't.
Don't hold your breath.
Mr. Misar’s arithmetic is sound, but the deeper problem is that the Hudson study points to a one-venue market without naming the loser. That silence has enabled the City to act as if both Keller and PSU can coexist, when the analysis itself suggests they cannot.
This has been a terrific series...and it illustrates this town's reluctance to deal with reality, encapsulated in this sentence: "Nevertheless, it recommends expansion in the form of a new 3,000-seat venue on the PSU campus." If that isn't Portland for ya, what is?
This is a small city that has always tried to punch far above its weight. It was fueled by too much money in too few smart pockets, and the idea that those Smart People™ could produce a mini-New York on the Willamette. Anyone who got in the way was bulldozed (which is what Albina One is all about, with their utopian promises) and why almost every pol collapsed when a subprime mogul threatened to yank our Big League team...as if that would affect the average Portland person in the slightest.
And now, when we really need the Smart People™ to stand up to the amateur revolutionaries and their spooky backers out east somewhere, they're silent.
Just our luck. It turns out that theaters are a metaphor for dreams that always seem to turn into nightmares.
I take a stupid lesson from Sim City, in that there is (or was) a tipping point for growing cities to invest in arts and sports facilities to cater to the entertainment demand of it's growing residential base. When the Keller was built in 1917, live theater was still in strong, active demand and a profitable investment for producers. But, whereas sports franchises on both a national and collegiate level have grown over the latter half of the last century, the performing arts have done nothing but shrink. So consumer demand for live entertainment in a 3,000 seat venue was much greater when the city invested in that facility than it is today.
It is clear that demand has dropped remarkably, even since the mid 60s when the City decided to upgrade the Keller as part of it's first adjacent urban renewal project. More to the point, private enterprise (two of the Portland'5 largest and sustained booking clients) have decided to stop leasing municipal space and build their own venues - paying themselves a lease fee per tour booking.
My chief goal, when considering this series, was merely to show my fellow citizens exactly how idiotic City decisions have been and continue to be investing in real estate to provide theatrical venues not in leasing demand to local companies that cannot afford to lease them. This evidence shows how absurd adding a new venue at PSU really is. Sadly, the public are ignorant to all of this and local media (excepted here) choose not to expose these facts, but disseminate municipal misrepresentations via press release instead.
It had been my hope a dialog might grow to challenge the absurdity of the proposed expenditures. Clearly, without vocal public outcry, the City bureaucrats, in association with a handful of woefully under-educated (in the practice of business and financial management) elected officials - will bulldoze some insane version of their proposal through.
In the meantime, did anybody notice that PSU has had a completely predictable drop in enrollment and is now suffering with a budget crises of it's own? So, when the campus is rolling with money problems - this must seem a good time to gift them a new theater. And, did anyone ever check to see how well-utilized and in demand the current campus theaters are?
Lincoln (475 seat auditorium) and Hoffman (400 seat-flex space) Hall both can serve theatrical events. Admittedly, Hoffman (a lecture hall) would require some added stage, lighting and sound installation to operate as a theater. But, this is within the schools common assets to provide if desired. And yet, Hoffman is virtually never used as a theater space by any independent arts organization (and it is for lease.) Lincoln Hall appears to get booked most weekends during the school year - used by the theater, music, opera and dance departments. But, my money is on it also being under-utilized parts of the school year. End of semester appears to be when it gets most use.
I guess my most impractical desire is to see that a municipality operate like common businesses do - that it operate real estate and it's connected services at a profitable point to break-even, covering it's costs including retained earnings for projected and foreseeable asset replacement and upgrades. I do not understand how we public, owners of these assets, allow them to manage these at a constant loss, offset by other City income sources (taxes and fees - which will now be shrinking), with no effort to be competitive in this finite marketplace. Why aren't managers salaries (or at least incentives) tied to financial growth and stability? These are the greater questions I think about in this series.