Portland Museum of Art Expansion | Portland

[TC_zoid]

They have submitted an application to demolish the old children's museum.

Why can't they move it to the other side of the Clapp House, to face Spring Street? Probably because it will reduce the parking lot size and employees will have to walk a block or two. The museum is not as community friendly as it makes itself out to be. The new addition results in a giant hole made to the right side of the existing facade, thus in my opinion compromising its architecture. I have a 1982 copy of Architectural Record with the building on the cover and the article singing high praises of its integration to the surrounding buildings and the wonderful clerestory design on the roof. The building was built by Pei Cobb Freed & Partners. Cobb was the leading architect on it, and well, if you look at his Boston upbringing and father, it's not such the big feel-good institutions are looking for now. The Portland, OR firm that is designing the addition has no experience other than a few office buildings. But their assigned architect is the feel-good the PMA wants or needs. I know, we can't talk about these things, but I am a bit disappointed in the director of the museum. His implication in the PPH article that the Children's Museum carries some toxicity with it because it was built during the "Jim Crow" era caused an outcry in the comments section.

 

[markhb]

His implication in the PPH article that the Children's Museum carries some toxicity with it because it was built during the "Jim Crow" era caused an outcry in the comments section.

Though the article didn't state it, my assumption was that he was implying that colonnades bring to mind plantations. Some quick Googling tells me that the building has been renovated several times, but there is a John Calvin Stevens sketch showing it as having some columns in 1836, so that their reinstatement when the building was turned into the Chamber of Commerce offices was a restoration of sorts.

 

[PlantArch]

Why can't they move it to the other side of the Clapp House, to face Spring Street? Probably because it will reduce the parking lot size and employees will have to walk a block or two. The museum is not as community friendly as it makes itself out to be. The new addition results in a giant hole made to the right side of the existing facade, thus in my opinion compromising its architecture. I have a 1982 copy of Architectural Record with the building on the cover and the article singing high praises of its integration to the surrounding buildings and the wonderful clerestory design on the roof. The building was built by Pei Cobb Freed & Partners. Cobb was the leading architect on it, and well, if you look at his Boston upbringing and father, it's not such the big feel-good institutions are looking for now. The Portland, OR firm that is designing the addition has no experience other than a few office buildings. But their assigned architect is the feel-good the PMA wants or needs. I know, we can't talk about these things, but I am a bit disappointed in the director of the museum. His implication in the PPH article that the Children's Museum carries some toxicity with it because it was built during the "Jim Crow" era caused an outcry in the comments section.

As I have asserted before, just because it was designed by this firm does not make it great architecture. There really is nothing outstanding about the architecture of the museum but adding the "hole" to the right side of the facade actually creates more balance to the facade than currently exists and makes sense in embracing the State street side of the new structure. The current design team was not my first choice but it's who needs to be worked with at this point and as we all know the design process in many cases results in an end product much different than what was originally envisioned.

 

[TC_zoid]

As I have asserted before, just because it was designed by this firm does not make it great architecture. There really is nothing outstanding about the architecture of the museum but adding the "hole" to the right side of the facade actually creates more balance to the facade than currently exists and makes sense in embracing the State street side of the new structure. The current design team was not my first choice but it's who needs to be worked with at this point and as we all know the design process in many cases results in an end product much different than what was originally envisioned.

Aesthetic balance in art and design does not have to translate to all counter shapes being equal. Architectural Record has been THE record of good architecture in the U.S. for over 100 years. They liked it enough to put it on the cover. That alone is good enough for me and perhaps most architects all over the country.

 

[markhb]

The Press Herald has a table-setter for the Historic Preservation Board meeting tomorrow afternoon (5 Pm, City Hall) where GP Landmarks is officially opposing the delisting of the Children's Museum building from the historic district.

 

[Portlander]

So I'm wondering if the Toshiko Mori design which incorporates the facade of the Children's Museum would meet the Historic Preservation Boards needs? This proposal was actually my second favorite after the Adjaye Associates concept.

 

[markhb]

That one also appears to keep the museum oriented towards Congress Square (and the woonerf-lite that is gradually being built), instead of the High St. throughway, and it omits the wind tunnel through the facade (have any of those architects ever been on the Portland peninsula in March?)

 

[DanielPWM19]

View attachment 43209
So I'm wondering if the Toshiko Mori design which incorporates the facade of the Children's Museum would meet the Historic Preservation Boards needs? This proposal was actually my second favorite after the Adjaye Associates concept.

Yeah ... sorry, I hate the "Saw-Tooth" factory-esque roof. Seemed like the design included a lot of waste and the windows would cause light and heat issues that would affect any art exhibited there.

 

[Portlander]

But it does add some visual interest to the skyline when compared to the other designs.

 

[matt.greeson]

That one also appears to keep the museum oriented towards Congress Square (and the woonerf-lite that is gradually being built), instead of the High St. throughway, and it omits the wind tunnel through the facade (have any of those architects ever been on the Portland peninsula in March?)

I have heard that the city plans to make both State and High two directional. Does anyone know if there's anything concrete there?

 

[Portlander]

That has been discussed and debated for the past decade and they were both two way until sometime back in the early 70's when the new arterials were introduced to downtown area. The last I heard is the city wants to wait until the entire Congress Square makeover is complete.

 

[matt.greeson]

Understood, I had just heard rumblings they'll put them back.

 

[GIL]

Toshiko Mori — the architect of that “runner up” plan — is also a Maine resident, and the plan did build around that historic building, so I really don’t understand how her team wasn’t chosen. A real miss by the PMA board.

 

[DanielPWM19]

Am I really the only one who thinks the Toshiko Mori is ugly as hell? It doesn't fit in Portland and won't age well. Architecturally speaking, "saw tooth" is a hard no.

Waves? Yeah, no. Might as well just stick the "Tracing the Fore" sculpture on top. It'll be just as hideous.

The museum will figure it out, it'll all be fine.

 

[Portlander]

Daniel, my take is that many on this forum complain about Portland's mundane and cookie cutter approach to the numerous new developments that have materialized over the years. Finally, we have a bold design that is totally unique to the traditional fabric of our brick and granite city and if there is anyone one on here that should immediately dislike the project it would probably be me. But it is a museum which represents art and as much as the "saw tooth" vision frustrates you, it has accomplished it's goal of creating some controversy which is what dynamic architecture is supposed to evoke. If the Toshiko Mori entry were to be built, it would instantly become a must see Portland landmark, where the current proposal would not inspire the same interest and wow factor in my opinion. And you are correct, it'll all be fine.

 

[markhb]

That has been discussed and debated for the past decade and they were both two way until sometime back in the early 70's when the new arterials were introduced to downtown area. The last I heard is the city wants to wait until the entire Congress Square makeover is complete.

Given that State and High are state highways (Route 77), I strongly doubt that MaineDOT will sign off on that change.

But regardless of that, @Portlander , that photo is magnificent. And now I think Channel 6 needs to add a weather display to their building.

(And those who hate billboards, you probably never saw that Coke sign in action when it was fully neon at night.)

 

[DanielPWM19]

Daniel, my take is that many on this forum complain about Portland's mundane and cookie cutter approach to the numerous new developments that have materialized over the years. Finally, we have a bold design that is totally unique to the traditional fabric of our brick and granite city and if there is anyone one on here that should immediately dislike the project it would probably be me. But it is a museum which represents art and as much as the "saw tooth" vision frustrates you, it has accomplished it's goal of creating some controversy which is what dynamic architecture is supposed to evoke. If the Toshiko Mori entry were to be built, it would instantly become a must see Portland landmark, where the current proposal would not inspire the same interest and wow factor in my opinion. And you are correct, it'll all be fine.

Understood. From an architectural standpoint (thus this forum), I disagree.

I fervently dislike the cookie cutter buildings that are going up in Portland. It's as if a second grader took colored blocks and decided "sure, this works!". None of them will age well, which lends to my previously stated opinion about Portland looking reminiscent of Eastern Europe in a matter of a decade or so. Or they'll be thought of as ghastly like brutalist structures.

I don't think the Toshiko Mori would instantly become a must-see Portland landmark. If so, it'll be short lived. It'll become passe quickly, age poorly, and have a number of structural, heating, cooling, humidity issues. Exactly what you don't want/need in a museum.

We shouldn't build something different just for the SAKE of building something different. There should also be a nod to a sense of place, while daring to push the limits and boundaries forward. The Toshiko Mori is a nod to the past, not the future. A old design with glass doesn't make it modern. In lieu of the "saw-tooth" roof, it would look better as a single or dual pinnacle. Black metal girders rather than white. If you're going to go contemporary-rustic with a nod to old factories, then do it. I would have designed something far more interesting, perhaps taller. If it's meant to stand out, then let it.

Lever is nice because it does sort of fit in with "Maine" but doesn't push us forward either. It's reminiscent of an LL Bean outlet on a grand scale. The other two designs were just a huge miss.

 

[TC_zoid]

Understood. From an architectural standpoint (thus this forum), I disagree.

I fervently dislike the cookie cutter buildings that are going up in Portland. It's as if a second grader took colored blocks and decided "sure, this works!". None of them will age well, which lends to my previously stated opinion about Portland looking reminiscent of Eastern Europe in a matter of a decade or so. Or they'll be thought of as ghastly like brutalist structures.

I don't think the Toshiko Mori would instantly become a must-see Portland landmark. If so, it'll be short lived. It'll become passe quickly, age poorly, and have a number of structural, heating, cooling, humidity issues. Exactly what you don't want/need in a museum.

We shouldn't build something different just for the SAKE of building something different. There should also be a nod to a sense of place, while daring to push the limits and boundaries forward. The Toshiko Mori is a nod to the past, not the future. A old design with glass doesn't make it modern. In lieu of the "saw-tooth" roof, it would look better as a single or dual pinnacle. Black metal girders rather than white. If you're going to go contemporary-rustic with a nod to old factories, then do it. I would have designed something far more interesting, perhaps taller. If it's meant to stand out, then let it.

Lever is nice because it does sort of fit in with "Maine" but doesn't push us forward either. It's reminiscent of an LL Bean outlet on a grand scale. The other two designs were just a huge miss.

All good points. However, this new addition is less about architecture than it is diversity and inclusion (if you dig into it, a bit).

 

[nomc]

All good points. However, this new addition is less about architecture than it is diversity and inclusion (if you dig into it, a bit).

Just because diversity and inclusion is a design requirement doesn't mean it's less about architecture, it just guides the design.

 

[SMCYB]

View attachment 43209
So I'm wondering if the Toshiko Mori design which incorporates the facade of the Children's Museum would meet the Historic Preservation Boards needs? This proposal was actually my second favorite after the Adjaye Associates concept.

Ewww!