The city cannot afford a $400-500 million commitment in the middle of a budget deficit era, with outstanding backlogs on parks and streets. Apparently neither can PSU, which is why they are asking city taxpayers to foot the bill.
We would be better off to renovate the Keller in stages as resources allow in the future, instead of abandoning it- or converting it at great cost with money we don’t have.
And PSU is no Julliard, neither in the quality of its music and theater faculty, alumni and students nor in its ability to attract private philanthropy to foot the bill for its edifice complex.
What began as a proposal for a theater has become an extravagant campus-development scheme with a theater attached.
The real beneficiaries would be the hotel operator, architects, consultants, contractors, construction unions, property interests, and institutions hoping increased activity will revive that part of downtown.
The city cannot afford a $400-500 million commitment in the middle of a budget deficit era, with huge outstanding backlogs on parks and streets. Apparently neither can PSU, which is why they are asking city taxpayers to foot the bill.
We would be better off to renovate the Keller in stages as resources allow in the future, instead of abandoning it- or converting it at great cost with money we don’t have.
The PSU Broadway theatre plan is the worst imaginable concept for Portland. PSU's ongoing financial crisis with no solution in sight means that it will in all likelihood not be able to fund its obligations for the other connected components of the proposal - and that assumes the City picks up all of the substantial operating costs the new PSU B'way theatre would require.
To be blunt, PSU is a weak financial partner for the City, given the University's inability to manage its own substantial funding shortfalls even after several decades of developing ineffective solutions. The only logical conclusion is that (despite PSU's claims) the City will end up fully funding construction and subsequent operating costs of the PSU Broadway Theatre.
Having spent my career raising money for universities and academic medical centers, my experience is that this type of project is ordinarily funded largely through capital campaigns — not through public appropriations or debt financing. This is the way that theaters were funded at Stanford, Northwestern, UCSD, Yale, Princeton, and other higher ed institutions. While the prospect of the theater complex envisioned by PSU is extremely exciting, I among others question whether its operations would pencil out financially in the midst of other competing performance venues in the downtown area. I would also want to know upfront through a rigorous fundraising feasibility study how much could be raised from charitable donations if a major campaign were to be launched.
The city’s market study concluded that Portland cannot sustain two 3,000-seat Broadway-capable venues. Starting from that assumption, Portland appears to have three basic options:
1. Build the new Broadway auditorium at PSU, maintain uninterrupted Broadway programming and eventually repurpose Keller as a smaller venue.
2. Undertake the proposed $290 million comprehensive Keller renovation and accept a roughly two-year closure—and the temporary loss of Broadway.
3. Explore a scaled-back Keller renovation focused on seismic safety and essential building systems, and determine whether that could meaningfully reduce both the cost and the length of the disruption.
These are the kinds of budget tradeoffs families make regularly. They repair the roof, postpone remodeling the kitchen and accept some inconvenience because they cannot afford everything they would like. Governments are often less willing to acknowledge those financial limits.
A new PSU auditorium might be a wonderful civic asset, but it may simply be beyond Portland’s present financial capacity—particularly when a complete funding plan for the city-owned Broadway venue has yet to be established. No mayor wants to say, “This investment is out of our league.” But choosing a more limited Keller renovation and accepting some temporary disruption would not necessarily represent a failure of vision. It might simply be responsible stewardship.
I am generally in favor of building new things, and I have often argued that Portland suffers from an inability to think big. For years, we joked that Portland was where young people went to retire—although that description may now be due for review. The recent Oregon Center for Public Policy article, “Many Jobs Pay Too Little to Support a Family,” reported that Oregon’s 2024 median wage of $25.54 an hour was insufficient to cover basic necessities for most families with children.
That is not an argument against civic investment. It is a reminder that Portland’s ambitions must bear some relationship to the income, tax base and philanthropic capacity of the community expected to support them. If I were on the City Council, this would likely be a regrettable “no” vote.
The city cannot afford a $400-500 million commitment in the middle of a budget deficit era, with outstanding backlogs on parks and streets. Apparently neither can PSU, which is why they are asking city taxpayers to foot the bill.
We would be better off to renovate the Keller in stages as resources allow in the future, instead of abandoning it- or converting it at great cost with money we don’t have.
And PSU is no Julliard, neither in the quality of its music and theater faculty, alumni and students nor in its ability to attract private philanthropy to foot the bill for its edifice complex.
What began as a proposal for a theater has become an extravagant campus-development scheme with a theater attached.
The real beneficiaries would be the hotel operator, architects, consultants, contractors, construction unions, property interests, and institutions hoping increased activity will revive that part of downtown.
The city cannot afford a $400-500 million commitment in the middle of a budget deficit era, with huge outstanding backlogs on parks and streets. Apparently neither can PSU, which is why they are asking city taxpayers to foot the bill.
We would be better off to renovate the Keller in stages as resources allow in the future, instead of abandoning it- or converting it at great cost with money we don’t have.
The PSU Broadway theatre plan is the worst imaginable concept for Portland. PSU's ongoing financial crisis with no solution in sight means that it will in all likelihood not be able to fund its obligations for the other connected components of the proposal - and that assumes the City picks up all of the substantial operating costs the new PSU B'way theatre would require.
To be blunt, PSU is a weak financial partner for the City, given the University's inability to manage its own substantial funding shortfalls even after several decades of developing ineffective solutions. The only logical conclusion is that (despite PSU's claims) the City will end up fully funding construction and subsequent operating costs of the PSU Broadway Theatre.
Having spent my career raising money for universities and academic medical centers, my experience is that this type of project is ordinarily funded largely through capital campaigns — not through public appropriations or debt financing. This is the way that theaters were funded at Stanford, Northwestern, UCSD, Yale, Princeton, and other higher ed institutions. While the prospect of the theater complex envisioned by PSU is extremely exciting, I among others question whether its operations would pencil out financially in the midst of other competing performance venues in the downtown area. I would also want to know upfront through a rigorous fundraising feasibility study how much could be raised from charitable donations if a major campaign were to be launched.
The city’s market study concluded that Portland cannot sustain two 3,000-seat Broadway-capable venues. Starting from that assumption, Portland appears to have three basic options:
1. Build the new Broadway auditorium at PSU, maintain uninterrupted Broadway programming and eventually repurpose Keller as a smaller venue.
2. Undertake the proposed $290 million comprehensive Keller renovation and accept a roughly two-year closure—and the temporary loss of Broadway.
3. Explore a scaled-back Keller renovation focused on seismic safety and essential building systems, and determine whether that could meaningfully reduce both the cost and the length of the disruption.
These are the kinds of budget tradeoffs families make regularly. They repair the roof, postpone remodeling the kitchen and accept some inconvenience because they cannot afford everything they would like. Governments are often less willing to acknowledge those financial limits.
A new PSU auditorium might be a wonderful civic asset, but it may simply be beyond Portland’s present financial capacity—particularly when a complete funding plan for the city-owned Broadway venue has yet to be established. No mayor wants to say, “This investment is out of our league.” But choosing a more limited Keller renovation and accepting some temporary disruption would not necessarily represent a failure of vision. It might simply be responsible stewardship.
I am generally in favor of building new things, and I have often argued that Portland suffers from an inability to think big. For years, we joked that Portland was where young people went to retire—although that description may now be due for review. The recent Oregon Center for Public Policy article, “Many Jobs Pay Too Little to Support a Family,” reported that Oregon’s 2024 median wage of $25.54 an hour was insufficient to cover basic necessities for most families with children.
That is not an argument against civic investment. It is a reminder that Portland’s ambitions must bear some relationship to the income, tax base and philanthropic capacity of the community expected to support them. If I were on the City Council, this would likely be a regrettable “no” vote.