My main question:
It says cost estimates spiraled from $75 million to $125 million and that was problematic for Phil Knight. What article doesn't say is how Phil now is fine with a project that is supposed to cost $200 million.
Phil likes the $200 million better because he thinks the $125 will have had out of control ongoing maintenence and other preservation related construction increases, while the $200 million will get a better stadium at a long term lower cost due to less costs of upkeep and more predictable construction costs. Personally I think Phil's design is awesome, and was the right move.
Better off to build a new replicate of the grandstand elsewhere in Oregon if the history is to be maintained,.