Money is certainly a huge factor. Not just the cost of putting on a show in New York once the show is ready to go but . . . the cost of living in this town. Taking class here. Renting a space in which to try out new ideas. (Writers can take their pencil, paper, & imagination just about anywhere. Choreographers need space—and dancers—to realize their work.)

As we know, in Europe, contemporary dance as well as classical gets substantial economic support from the government. Not so in the US of A. The purse keepers have other fish to fry.

Granted, poverty didn’t daunt Martha Graham, Merce Cunningham, Paul Taylor, and a few others we can name. Were there—are there—choreographers of equivalent genius who remain nameless to us because they simply didn’t have the stamina to endure the cruel prevailing conditions?

Another question: If generous funding is essential, why hasn’t Europe yet produced dance makers of Martha/Merce caliber?

Yes, money is a key factor, but other issues are at work as well. I’d like to hear what the choreographers themselves, established & otherwise, have to say about this.

Despite an undernourished budget, in May the San Francisco International Arts Festvial was able to put European dance companies on its roster because of the connections created by so many medium-sized local companies who have established beach heads in Europe where they regularly perform and teach. At one time they might have moved to New York. Perhaps the fact that they didn't is an indication that New York has lost some of its cache for, at least, for some mid-career artists.

John Rockwell's recollection of Virgil Thompson's comment on real estate rings true to thoughts I have had for years about New York. World politics changed New York in 1973 and 1977. I lived and worked there then and saw it happen.
Thankfully construction doesn't happen instantly so great work continued for many years after, but the direction shifted imediately. The oil embrago of 73, repeated in 77 repopulated Manhattan and later Brooklyn Heights with the affluent young. The gentrification of the city forced by the need to remain close to work changed the cost of living in new York.

When I moved to New York one could work a part-time job to earn the required minimum to pay rent, and there were amble lofts and buildings available to work in. The off-off Braodway scene was informal and very active. Dance and theatre happened in every niche. Young artists worked on thir craft, not their support mechanism.

We are a far cry from that now as two full-time jobs leave minimal living funds available and the young artists today must strive to find a few open hours a month and work through much more beaurocratic structures to find a place to perform than was once the case. The young cannot experiment on art to the same degree they could before gentrification. The great loss is that the centralized way of living and working together throughout the city made for vital connective tissues to form that made collaboration a living force in the creation of art. Today it often feels it is an imposed force, directed by funders seeking to see the most value for their creative investments.
Real estate did indeed change the development of art in New York. Not for the better, I am sorry to say.

Commenting on Tobi Tobias' comment, while I agree that quality of work made is often not commensurate with quantity of funding available, I take issue with Europe not having produced choreographers of the level of Martha/Merce. Pina/Jiri come to mind to start.