The basketball has, only tentatively, burst.
It happened Wednesday, when University President Dave Frohnmayer announced that plans to build a new arena have been placed indefinitely on hold.
Money, more than anything else, can be attributed to why the arena project — or at least this arena project — is dead. Back in April 2003, costs for a new arena were estimated between $90 million and $130 million. By December, two months after Howe Field was chosen as the project’s site, estimated costs had risen to more than $160 million. And in January, after taking a hard look at what needed to be done to build a top-tier arena — a must, according to the donors who were reportedly going to chip in $130 million — costs had spiraled to more than $180 million.
The Athletics Department clearly didn’t want to incur large amounts of debt to fund the remainder of the project, or Frohnmayer wouldn’t let it happen, so the arena has been delayed.
The decision should be applauded because it’s the fiscally responsible thing to do: The University will likely raise tuition next academic year after the failure of Measure 30; The University may have to cut classes after the failure of Measure 30; and Oregon has been regarded as one of the worst states in the country in terms of higher-education affordability.
While these financial woes should be irrelevant when considering construction of a new arena because the Athletics Department is self-supporting and separate from academics, Frohnmayer has wisely realized that the two cannot be separated.
In the minds of many, no matter how distant the Athletics Department is from the University as an academic institution, a certain distaste brews when one considers the struggling educational system compared to the thriving athletics establishment.
The Athletics Department spent $250,000 to publicize a Heisman Trophy campaign for Joey Harrington in 2001. The following year Autzen Stadium received a $100 million overhaul. This past year the newly revamped locker room at Autzen received praise and criticism for its many amenities.
Perhaps Frohnmayer recognized that going forth and building the arena would push the University into an even more unfavorable national spotlight.
University faculty members are nationally recognized as being some of the founding fathers against what is known as the athletics “arms race.” Trying to outdo other sports programs by building the biggest and most extravagant facilities is the name of the game, and that’s what so many academics across the country are warning against.
Building the best comes at a cost, they say. Whether it’s the reputation of the University, its integrity or the sentiment on campus, building a new arena will have an effect.
So now, perhaps in some way to prevent such ramifications, the project is on hold. But, really, so what?
The University will still build a new arena to replace McArthur Court, it just won’t do it on the schedule it set forth.
The arena will still be a multi-million-dollar building, almost certainly far more millions than the current figure.
And donors will still contribute to the project, most likely in a more substantial way.
The University has opened itself up to saying that $180 million is too much because it can’t currently be funded. So, if in a few years, donors are willing to pay for a $225 million arena, it just may be funded.
The University hasn’t imposed any sort of self-restraint on what is necessary. Instead it has taken the philosophy that, “If we build it, you must fund.”
And just watch. When has delaying a project ever resulted in lower costs?
The University may have put plans for a new arena indefinitely on hold. But judging from what has been seen thus far, there is no such moratorium against the extravagant and the excessive.