Hollywood Moved Out of Hollywood. Could Broadway Eventually Move Out of Broadway?

There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the future of Broadway, particularly as productions become increasingly expensive to capitalize and operate. The problem is not simply that Broadway is expensive. New York City is expensive for everyone and everything.

Theater rent is expensive. Rehearsal space is expensive. Housing is expensive. Warehousing, transportation, advertising, insurance, materials, and construction are expensive. Even feeding and accommodating a company during rehearsals can become a significant line item.

At the same time, everyone involved deserves to be paid fairly.

Actors, musicians, stagehands, designers, directors, writers, company managers, press agents, ushers, wardrobe teams, craftspeople, and countless others make Broadway possible. These are highly skilled professionals, many of whom are also trying to survive in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

The answer cannot simply be to ask people to work for less. Broadway’s cost problem is much larger than any one salary, union, or department. It is the cumulative cost of creating and operating an extraordinarily complicated business in an extraordinarily expensive city.

Even successful shows can struggle under that weight. Ticket prices can only rise so far, and audiences are already being asked to spend significant amounts of money to attend a Broadway production.

At some point, the industry may need to consider a more fundamental question:

Does everything that ultimately comes to Broadway still need to be created on Broadway?

Hollywood may offer an interesting comparison.

Hollywood remains the symbolic center of the American film and television industry, but a significant amount of what Hollywood produces is no longer filmed in Hollywood. Productions moved to Georgia, New Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other locations where costs were lower, incentives were stronger, and experienced local crews were available.

Hollywood did not stop being Hollywood. The financing, studios, agencies, awards, marketing, and decision making largely remained centered there. The physical production simply became far more geographically flexible.

Could Broadway eventually follow a similar path?

New York would remain the commercial and cultural center of the American theater industry. Broadway would still carry unparalleled prestige. The Tony Awards, Broadway theaters, national press, investors, producers, and major theatrical institutions would remain central to the business.

However, the actual process of developing and launching a production could increasingly happen elsewhere.

Instead of raising $20 million to build a show from the ground up in New York, a production might begin at a regional theater or in another major city. It could develop in front of audiences, strengthen its storytelling, improve its physical production, and establish whether there is genuine demand for the show.

Social media also makes geography less important than it once was.

A show no longer needs to be playing in Times Square to attract national or international attention. Rehearsal footage, performances, songs, cast content, and audience reactions can reach millions of people before a production ever arrives in New York. We already see audiences travel significant distances to see their favorite singers. Fans plan vacations around tour dates, fly to other cities, and turn a concert into a destination event.

There is no reason theater cannot inspire more of that same behavior. If a new musical generates genuine excitement online, audiences may be willing to travel to

see it in Chicago, Toronto, London, Manila, or another city. A production could build a following city by city, with social media allowing each engagement to strengthen demand for the next one.

A tour would no longer simply be the secondary market that follows Broadway. It could become the platform through which a show builds its identity, audience, and cultural relevance.

Rather than viewing a national tour primarily as something that happens after Broadway, producers could use touring as part of the road to Broadway. A production might play for a year in cities across the country, building awareness and generating revenue before arriving in New York.

Under that model, Broadway could become the crown jewel of the production’s journey, but function economically more like an extended and highly prestigious stop on a larger tour.

This would reverse the traditional sequence. Instead of developing in New York, opening on Broadway, and hoping that a tour eventually helps recover the investment, a production could develop regionally, tour nationally, and arrive on Broadway as a tested and established commercial property.

Development could also become increasingly international.

The United Kingdom already has one of the world’s strongest theatrical ecosystems. It offers extraordinary actors, directors, designers, musicians, craftspeople, and technicians, often at costs below those of mounting the same production in New York.

Other English speaking countries could eventually become important development centers as well. The Philippines and South Africa, for example, both have strong English speaking talent, growing entertainment industries, and substantially lower production costs.

Moving development elsewhere would not mean exploiting lower paid workers. Those productions would still need to compensate everyone fairly within their local markets. The potential savings would come from operating in places where the overall cost of living and doing business is lower, allowing everyone to be paid appropriately without requiring a production to carry New York’s entire cost structure from its earliest stages.

Could a musical be workshopped in Manila, physically built in South Africa, premiered in the United Kingdom, toured through North America, and then brought to Broadway?

It may sound unconventional, but so did filming major Hollywood movies thousands of miles from California.

This would not mean abandoning New York or undermining the professionals who have built Broadway. Any evolution would need to respect the unions, artists, technicians, musicians, craftspeople, and theater workers who make the industry possible.

There would also be significant practical challenges. Broadway contracts, touring agreements, transfer costs, theater availability, Tony eligibility, and the logistics of moving a production between countries would all need to be addressed.

Not every production would benefit from this model. Some shows need to be created in New York, and certain plays and musicals will always premiere directly on Broadway.

However, the current system places an enormous financial burden on a production before it has had a meaningful opportunity to find its audience. Producers are often asked to spend millions of dollars developing a show and then capitalize a Broadway production costing many millions more, all before knowing how the public will respond.

A more geographically flexible model could allow productions to develop more patiently, take greater creative risks, and arrive in New York in a stronger financial and artistic position.

It could also expand the theatrical talent pipeline. Broadway would gain access to performers, musicians, designers, technicians, and creative voices who might never have had the opportunity or resources to move to New York.

The question is not whether Broadway should leave New York. It should not, and it never will.

The question is whether Broadway can remain the center of the theater industry while becoming less dependent on New York as the location for every stage of production.

Hollywood moved out of Hollywood without losing its identity.

Perhaps the future of Broadway is not fewer ambitious productions. Perhaps it is a new model in which shows are developed globally, promoted digitally, proven regionally, toured nationally, and brought to New York when they are truly ready.

Could Broadway eventually move out of Broadway, while still remaining Broadway?