"the Mayor's advisory council"...hmmm..those people pushing this plan seem to be sneaky and likely self-serving. How else does one square the absence of a formal study replete with trustworthy data and forecasts? The desires of this group should not dictate the economics of those who must pay. Politics is a dirty business and we can see the consequences. The idea of a second Broadway complex did not grow from demand, it grew from inconvenience. Need we remind ourselves that Portland business is dying? Fully one-third of office space is vacant. Porltand needs to tighten its belt and resurrect profitable enterprises who are willing to come because the business climate is welcoming. We needa full review of the city's budget so that we can lower taxes, spend for more police staffing. Every dollar is precious, particularly when the revenue pie shrinks.
Excellent assessment. Spot on. Added bonus: it stops city councilors from making more bad decisions. Anything that keeps those fools sidelined is a great idea by itself......Something like addressing an aging arts facility is way beyond their expertise.
In addition, the Keller, like the Coliseum, are iconic mid century designs, and should be preserved for their architectural contribution to an otherwise dull city landscape. Some things need to be saved, not because a sports team may leave, or a developer can't collect on his campaign contribution, but because they have a larger meaning for the community. The Keller, perfectly placed adjacent to that spectacular fountain, is an art statement itself. Keep it for that reason alone.
PS: An example if irreplaceable loss: The Pietro Belluschi Catholic church is another iconic architectural masterpiece of mid century design scheduled to be torn down and replaced with a gothic style nightmare. I believe art and design feed the soul as much, if not more, than faith.
If there is a god, now would be a good time for him/her to intervene.......
Great advice. Will anyone listen? It becomes a contest to testify for the various camps, hoing to sway the vote with the completely unrepresentative support and objection, with various stakeholders edging for advantage, as if two or three minutes of open persuasion will make a difference. I am hoping to forward this piece to the City Council members and Mayor, in the hope that their staff will actually read the article or the comments and pass that along to their boss and that the boss will read it.
We are in the midst of this decision, a similar one about the MODA Center and another about highways and schools and health care and behavioral health and the State Hospital. Governments are good at exciting folks about new shiny objects, but notoriously bad at maintaining what they have. We broke the mold when we created a tax to accumulate to address climate change and it produced way more than initially expected, so here we are arguing about using it for the MODA Center and sidewalks. Portland is very good at chasing shiny objects. But the Portland Five are losing money and have lots of deferred maintenance. It is really the Keller keeping all five from sinking. Metro has punted the problem to Portland.
We are losing population, especially in Multnomah County and Portland, but so is Oregon generally. Much of the population we are losing is that part that pays the taxes that fund the government that builds and maintains the infrastructure and provides educational and health services. Fix the basics.
We need to consolidate around the basics of good government; public safety, public health, public education and water and start building on that. Losing the Blazers will be a shame, but unless the business community rallies around funding the needed improvements and we demonstrate a plan to maintain it, it is leaving along with the businesses that should be its sponsor. We may eventually lose the Keller, but we don't need to compound the problem with a new bill for the PSU theater. We need all the local stakeholders to get on the same page and coelease around a plan to save Portland from itself. We need to decide what we are and adopt a realistic vision for ourselves.
If memory serves, the NW Examiner ran a series not long ago on the hard, cold economics of Portland's venues. The conclusion is that we have too many theaters and not enough audience. But builders must build--the epitaph for our little town.
The case for pausing the PSU proposal is compelling.
For more than 30 years, Portland has owned the Keller and the other Portland’5 venues, but Metro, through MERC and Portland’5, has managed their day-to-day operations. Much of the practical experience with booking, staffing, event production, maintenance, finances and resident-company relations therefore appears to reside with Metro and Portland’5 rather than within City government.
That raises a basic question: who inside city government has the experience needed to judge a project of this size and complexity?
The consultants appear to have been asked a narrow question: which site could support the larger and more productive Broadway theater? A 3,200-seat hall at PSU was then compared with a 3,000-seat Keller. Not surprisingly, the larger hall was projected to sell more tickets and produce more spending.
But the second study did not compare construction costs, financing costs, operating expenses, long-term maintenance or likely public subsidies. It therefore did not show that the PSU option would be the better public investment. It showed mainly that a larger theater would produce more gross activity.
The circumstances of the two sponsoring institutions make those omissions especially troubling.
Portland has just faced a General Fund shortfall of about $170 million. It has balanced its budget through service cuts, reserves, one-time transfers and reductions in contingency funds. At the same time, the city has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance involving streets, parks, public buildings and other basic infrastructure.
PSU is also retrenching rather than growing. It has lost a substantial share of its enrollment, is laying off employees, closing or dismantling academic departments and trying to eliminate a large budget deficit.
Against that background, a city struggling to maintain basic services and a university reducing its academic operations are advancing a performing-arts complex that could include two theaters, a hotel, conference facilities, restaurants, offices, classrooms and underground parking.
The more important question is not which site could hold the largest Broadway theater. It is whether either institution is financially and administratively equipped to undertake a project of this scale.
That question cannot be answered by projections of attendance and visitor spending. It requires an independent comparison of the full costs, risks and operating demands of each realistic option. The analysis should identify not only what each alternative would cost to build, but also what it would cost to finance, operate, maintain and eventually renew—and which public body would bear those obligations.
The alternatives should include a modest Keller repair program, a full renovation, phased work, a stand-alone replacement theater, the complete PSU complex and postponing a major decision. The review should also determine who would operate the Portland’5 venues after Metro withdraws, whether the City can retain Metro’s institutional knowledge, and who would cover operating losses or cost overruns if the assumptions prove wrong.
Until those questions are answered, the PSU recommendation looks less like a settled public-policy conclusion than a glitzy development plan that has gained an alarming amount of momentum before the City has shown how it would pay for, operate and maintain it.
The proposed $10 million to $15 million Keller fix therefore deserves serious consideration. It would preserve the building, keep Broadway downtown and give Portland time to obtain the financial and operating facts it should have evaluated before choosing a preferred project.
Agreed. 100%
"the Mayor's advisory council"...hmmm..those people pushing this plan seem to be sneaky and likely self-serving. How else does one square the absence of a formal study replete with trustworthy data and forecasts? The desires of this group should not dictate the economics of those who must pay. Politics is a dirty business and we can see the consequences. The idea of a second Broadway complex did not grow from demand, it grew from inconvenience. Need we remind ourselves that Portland business is dying? Fully one-third of office space is vacant. Porltand needs to tighten its belt and resurrect profitable enterprises who are willing to come because the business climate is welcoming. We needa full review of the city's budget so that we can lower taxes, spend for more police staffing. Every dollar is precious, particularly when the revenue pie shrinks.
Excellent assessment. Spot on. Added bonus: it stops city councilors from making more bad decisions. Anything that keeps those fools sidelined is a great idea by itself......Something like addressing an aging arts facility is way beyond their expertise.
In addition, the Keller, like the Coliseum, are iconic mid century designs, and should be preserved for their architectural contribution to an otherwise dull city landscape. Some things need to be saved, not because a sports team may leave, or a developer can't collect on his campaign contribution, but because they have a larger meaning for the community. The Keller, perfectly placed adjacent to that spectacular fountain, is an art statement itself. Keep it for that reason alone.
PS: An example if irreplaceable loss: The Pietro Belluschi Catholic church is another iconic architectural masterpiece of mid century design scheduled to be torn down and replaced with a gothic style nightmare. I believe art and design feed the soul as much, if not more, than faith.
If there is a god, now would be a good time for him/her to intervene.......
Great advice. Will anyone listen? It becomes a contest to testify for the various camps, hoing to sway the vote with the completely unrepresentative support and objection, with various stakeholders edging for advantage, as if two or three minutes of open persuasion will make a difference. I am hoping to forward this piece to the City Council members and Mayor, in the hope that their staff will actually read the article or the comments and pass that along to their boss and that the boss will read it.
We are in the midst of this decision, a similar one about the MODA Center and another about highways and schools and health care and behavioral health and the State Hospital. Governments are good at exciting folks about new shiny objects, but notoriously bad at maintaining what they have. We broke the mold when we created a tax to accumulate to address climate change and it produced way more than initially expected, so here we are arguing about using it for the MODA Center and sidewalks. Portland is very good at chasing shiny objects. But the Portland Five are losing money and have lots of deferred maintenance. It is really the Keller keeping all five from sinking. Metro has punted the problem to Portland.
We are losing population, especially in Multnomah County and Portland, but so is Oregon generally. Much of the population we are losing is that part that pays the taxes that fund the government that builds and maintains the infrastructure and provides educational and health services. Fix the basics.
We need to consolidate around the basics of good government; public safety, public health, public education and water and start building on that. Losing the Blazers will be a shame, but unless the business community rallies around funding the needed improvements and we demonstrate a plan to maintain it, it is leaving along with the businesses that should be its sponsor. We may eventually lose the Keller, but we don't need to compound the problem with a new bill for the PSU theater. We need all the local stakeholders to get on the same page and coelease around a plan to save Portland from itself. We need to decide what we are and adopt a realistic vision for ourselves.
If memory serves, the NW Examiner ran a series not long ago on the hard, cold economics of Portland's venues. The conclusion is that we have too many theaters and not enough audience. But builders must build--the epitaph for our little town.
The case for pausing the PSU proposal is compelling.
For more than 30 years, Portland has owned the Keller and the other Portland’5 venues, but Metro, through MERC and Portland’5, has managed their day-to-day operations. Much of the practical experience with booking, staffing, event production, maintenance, finances and resident-company relations therefore appears to reside with Metro and Portland’5 rather than within City government.
That raises a basic question: who inside city government has the experience needed to judge a project of this size and complexity?
The consultants appear to have been asked a narrow question: which site could support the larger and more productive Broadway theater? A 3,200-seat hall at PSU was then compared with a 3,000-seat Keller. Not surprisingly, the larger hall was projected to sell more tickets and produce more spending.
But the second study did not compare construction costs, financing costs, operating expenses, long-term maintenance or likely public subsidies. It therefore did not show that the PSU option would be the better public investment. It showed mainly that a larger theater would produce more gross activity.
The circumstances of the two sponsoring institutions make those omissions especially troubling.
Portland has just faced a General Fund shortfall of about $170 million. It has balanced its budget through service cuts, reserves, one-time transfers and reductions in contingency funds. At the same time, the city has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance involving streets, parks, public buildings and other basic infrastructure.
PSU is also retrenching rather than growing. It has lost a substantial share of its enrollment, is laying off employees, closing or dismantling academic departments and trying to eliminate a large budget deficit.
Against that background, a city struggling to maintain basic services and a university reducing its academic operations are advancing a performing-arts complex that could include two theaters, a hotel, conference facilities, restaurants, offices, classrooms and underground parking.
The more important question is not which site could hold the largest Broadway theater. It is whether either institution is financially and administratively equipped to undertake a project of this scale.
That question cannot be answered by projections of attendance and visitor spending. It requires an independent comparison of the full costs, risks and operating demands of each realistic option. The analysis should identify not only what each alternative would cost to build, but also what it would cost to finance, operate, maintain and eventually renew—and which public body would bear those obligations.
The alternatives should include a modest Keller repair program, a full renovation, phased work, a stand-alone replacement theater, the complete PSU complex and postponing a major decision. The review should also determine who would operate the Portland’5 venues after Metro withdraws, whether the City can retain Metro’s institutional knowledge, and who would cover operating losses or cost overruns if the assumptions prove wrong.
Until those questions are answered, the PSU recommendation looks less like a settled public-policy conclusion than a glitzy development plan that has gained an alarming amount of momentum before the City has shown how it would pay for, operate and maintain it.
The proposed $10 million to $15 million Keller fix therefore deserves serious consideration. It would preserve the building, keep Broadway downtown and give Portland time to obtain the financial and operating facts it should have evaluated before choosing a preferred project.