Portland Museum of Art Expansion | Portland

Being a member of Portland Landmarks, the mission has changed since the fall of the tower(Union Station). its just not the same anymore with several people leaving the organization. I totally understand that we want to save everything and I get it, but we have to look to the future generation that will use the art museum. The years of old 75 plus patrons looking at art have gone away. Now its hip and young 25 year olds plus and the new members who want roof top areas, sipping cocktail's, and enjoying the art scene. Are they going to care if the old children's museum is still around?? no. The building could be repurposed into art space for art students while the museum expands using the Spring Street area(the old YWCA lot) for a modern entrance and using the upper parking lot to tie into that area. It just seems that this whole process was not fully thought out betting that the building would be demolished. Is there a plan b,c,d? I would push for a new entrance on Spring Street!!! refix the area and street.
 
Toshiki Mori PMA Free Street.png

Toshiko Mori PMA Free Street entry
 
Last edited:
So back to my original question. Does anyone think the Historic Preservation Board would find this approach to saving the facade acceptable and allowing for the demolition of the rest of the building? I feel that they might even though the PMA will probably not budge from their desire to build the Lever proposal which I actually don't mind, it's just not my favorite.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the description of the District or the reasons this building was decided to be contributing (I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I just don't know the details), but I have a hunch the HP Board sees themselves as being sticklers on the details, and so this might be a Nay as well. And as far as the City Council goes, have they ever passed something over a non-recommendation from the HP board?
 
Historic Preservation Ordinance Review Standards

I think these are what they are look at. My feeling is that there are enough "distinguishing original qualities or character of a structure, object or site and its environment" that they wouldn't recommend it. Also, see #4: "Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a structure, object or site and its environment. Changes that have acquired significance in their own right, shall not be destroyed."
 
Last edited:
Image 11-2-23 at 6.02 PM.jpg

Not sure how this will work out and whether the City Council will take the preservation board's recommendation under advisement and side with the PMA? Mainebiz photo and article.
 
The expansion idea has become a bumbling mess. The director recently said (from the PPH) that the old Children's Museum should be razed because "It comes from the Jim Crow era," which is kind of silly or stupid to say, and the arch firm they hired, from Portland, OR, has no experience with public buildings or nothing of note except a mediocre office building. But the lead architect and firm check all the right "diversity boxes," and thus this is the driving force for the project. They could easily repurpose the old Children's Museum for something else related. They could make the new entrance on Spring Street alongside the wonderful Clapp building and dig down under the parking lot for a spacey parking garage. The new build could go on top, taller--maybe 7 or 8 stories. It could be just as magnificent a piece of architecture facing Spring Street. The current facade to Congress Square would remain unchanged. The Charles Shipman Payson addition is great architecture, or according to Architectural Record's review of it soon after it opened. The museum's director and board members look a little or maybe a lot, pathetic here. So, they want to destroy the old Children's Museum, compromise the wonderful architecture of the Charles Shipman Payson facade, and then build a big wooden out-of-place structure that celebrates the Wabanaki Indians. I think this will remain a mess for a while.
 
Last edited:
There really is no good option - putting it on Spring St means it can't function as the main entrance. Could try and buy the lot from MaineHealth and put it there, but then you'd have to put another level on the Spring St garage. And the three buildings next to each other on Free St would just be a jumble.
 
I think PMA is partly in the wrong here. They -KNEW- 142 Free St. was a contributing structure before the design contest even began...But I think they assumed they would be able to breeze through the process for removing its contributing status by virtue of their institutional prominence and based all of their expansion plans on demolishing 142 Free...which was by no means a certainty.

Personally I would be very surprised if the City Council doesn't follow the recommendation of the HPB
 
Last edited:
I don't think many stewards of historic districts are eager to delist contributing structures, unless they've rotted away to nothing (and not always even then). As for the Jim Crow thing, I think the idea is that the colonnade supposedly echoes plantation architecture, but... I'm sorry. We can't go putting trigger warnings on every piece of Greek Revival in the country, much less tear them down.
 
I feel that it is always better learning from the past rather than destroying everything associated with it. It becomes a slippery slope....and sometimes a mountain is created out of a mole hill.
 
Now I could be wrong here, and sometimes (or often) I am, but I think that buildings (not houses) constructed in Maine--over all of recorded history--have won only 2 national awards, or distinctions. Architectural Record had that wonderful review (12 pages with cover image) from the PMA's Charles Shipman Payson build in 1983, designed by I.M. Pei's Henry Cobb (I located and have the issue), and the all-glass Casco Bay Ferry terminal addition (I remember Corey took a stunning picture of that) won an AIA award (Scott Simons Architecture). And now the PMA wants to deface or remove or alter or ruin one of these buildings. Perhaps the implication on this is that Maine is not open minded enough when it comes to architecture and design? It certainly has no problem from earning multiple national culinary and beverage distinctions (I guess it's that Mainers like to eat and drink and have no problem with how inventive it is). How ironic, that it most certainly used to be that way, restrictive, and now, today, with rampant cancel culture ideas running amok it's at a new or different level.

IMG_4434.jpg
 
I don't think we're allowed to post polls here, so I'll just ask: the original concept for the Payson wing of the PMA called for the circles to be wholly open, rather than 2/3 filled-in. Would you have preferred that, or do you prefer it as-built?
 
I don't think we're allowed to post polls here, so I'll just ask: the original concept for the Payson wing of the PMA called for the circles to be wholly open, rather than 2/3 filled-in. Would you have preferred that, or do you prefer it as-built?
Thank you for asking. Here is the prior iteration before the actual build from the Architectual Record article (notice the second floor change). As I like to say, the greatness in design or writing is about the reworkings. Anyone can put down an initial creation, but what you do after can become divine.
 

Attachments

  • image3.jpeg
    image3.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 88
And they can always lift up, turn around, and move the Children's Museum to a Spring Street entrance if they want to save their must-be Congress Street main one.
 
Thanks; I'll just point out that that question is for all here. Now I'm wondering if the HPB recommendation will be handled by the lame-duck Council in November or if it will be held until the new Mayor and Council are in place in December.
 
I don't think we're allowed to post polls here, so I'll just ask: the original concept for the Payson wing of the PMA called for the circles to be wholly open, rather than 2/3 filled-in. Would you have preferred that, or do you prefer it as-built?
Would the bottom 2/3 have been windows into the upper gallery?
 
Would the bottom 2/3 have been windows into the upper gallery?
I believe they would have been entirely open to the sky. I don't know what that means for the upper gallery.
 
The museum and its director are back at it. If you remember, he was quoted in the PPH in justifying the demolition of the old Children's Museum: "It was built during the Jim Crow era," to make room for their proposed grand wooden structure designed by a *mediocre arch firm* that checks all the right boxes. If there were creativity and thought used within this scenario, and they are an art museum so it would seem appropriate, many interesting and creative solutions could be presented. Why not turn the "offending structure" around and move it to Spring Street? Or move it fifty feet to the left, or back and twenty feet to the left, and cover it all in a beautiful colorful mosaic, or luminescent paint patterns, or anything artistic. It could become in itself, an art piece. (Visit the new terminal at Newark Airport. Inside are columns that have become dynamic visual displays. https://www.panynj.gov/airports/en/index/new-ewr-terminal-a.html ) Simply leave the integrity of its form and shape. Raise more money and build underground parking. Portland is a city, that happens. I think it's more about blasting that giant hole at the end of Henry Cobb's (I.M. Pei) facade design, to destroy its design integrity, so they can feel better about it. Who Cobb is or was doesn't check any boxes for what is required today. I'll bet a group of MECA students could create something far more fun, connective, respectful, and resonating for this problem than the current museum can or will with its pet arch firm from the other Portland. That city has become a model of incompetency. The now de facto saga continues...
https://www.pressherald.com/2023/11...tinues-push-to-demolish-free-street-building/
 
Last edited:

Back
Top