MIAMI, Fla. - The sands that comprise the Cleveland Orchestra's residency in Miami may be shifting.

On my visit to the city last month, through the course of normal reporting, I learned that the orchestra appears to be poised to downsize the project to some extent next year, presumably in an effort to offset the $2.4 million deficit it reported in 2016. 

Note my use of the word "downsize," not "eliminate." I have no reason to suspect, even for a moment, that the orchestra would leave South Florida entirely. What I foresee is a reduction, a reallocation of time and resources.

What exactly such changes might entail, I can't say. The orchestra declined to officially confirm or deny any of the information I gleaned from a source inside the institution, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The exact nature of what may be transpiring likely won't be known until March, when the group is expected to announce its 2017-18 Miami season.

It isn't difficult or unreasonable to speculate, however.

I can attest firsthand that Miami is expensive. Everything from lodging and food to transportation costs a pretty penny down there, and the orchestra is an enormous outfit. If saving money is a goal, an effective move would be to reduce the amount of time the ensemble spends there.

If I were running the show, I might economize by trimming flights and paring down the residency from three or four scattered weeks to two or three consecutive weekends. I'd also do my rehearsing in Cleveland, reserving time in Miami for income-generating performances.

The saddest result of such changes would be a possible reduction in educational activities. Were it to have, say, only two weeks at its disposal in Miami instead of the current four, the orchestra simply wouldn't have time to do as much of the good and ambitious work of visiting area schools, colleges and community centers.

This, in turn, could negatively impact fundraising. One "Leadership" level donor I spoke to, who may or may not be representative of her peers, said that if the orchestra were to cut back on education in Miami, she'd trim her annual gift accordingly.

I'm also concerned about the effects a potentially leaner Miami residency could have on the orchestra's image in the region. The Arsht Center hosts many orchestras; it would be a shame, after a decade of putting down roots all over South Florida, if the Cleveland Orchestra were to devolve in the minds of locals into just another touring act.

That image problem also could spread. In its early days, Cleveland's Miami residency was national news, a bold and creative experiment and a potential model to orchestras everywhere. No matter that Cleveland remains committed to Miami. A reduction of the residency still could be interpreted by some in the industry as a kind of failure.

Why the orchestra might be entertaining a cutback is impossible to say with certainty. That topic, too, is one the orchestra has opted not to address publicly at this point.

Again, though, it's not hard to read between the lines. The list of high-level donors ($100,000 or more) to the Miami Music Association, the orchestra's governing body in South Florida, is 40 percent shorter than it used to be: six names vs. last year's 10. That's a decent chunk (and potentially all or most) of that $2.4 million deficit.

What's more, conspicuously absent from the list is Daniel Lewis, a founder of the residency and longtime "Leadership" supporter. He, in many ways, was the linchpin, the foundation of the whole enterprise. Lewis, though, vigorously refused to comment when approached at a recent Cleveland Orchestra concert in Miami.

He's is far from the only person essentially keeping quiet. Aside from a few sources, almost everyone with whom I spoke on this subject - board members, musicians, staff, administrators - declined to go on the record, holding off at least until after a formal announcement.

As unfortunate as it would be for the citizens of South Florida, a reduction in Miami would not necessarily be bad news for Cleveland. In fact, local fans and supporters could see it as a boon.

Less time in Miami would almost certainly mean more time in Cleveland. More concerts, more opportunities for the orchestra to engage its home base. If two weeks suddenly opened up on my calendar, I know I'd be overjoyed, and eager to make good use of them.

A drawdown in Miami might also speak volumes about audience development in Cleveland. Not that long ago, the orchestra went to Miami to ease the burden of selling tickets at home. It could be that now, thanks to the recent influx of new and younger listeners, that burden is no longer quite so heavy.

Lastly, it would be hard to argue with a decision made with the orchestra's financial well-being in mind. If a reduction in Miami is what's best for the institution, so be it. We're a few months away from celebrating the orchestra's centennial, and all everybody wants is another 100 years.

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.