Portland Museum of Art Expansion | Portland

So this has turned into a full steam ahead "we must destroy Jim Crow era buildings" than "let's build an incredible new addition to the Portland Museum of Art"?

I see. Is the museum director associated with Disney? Asking for a friend.
 
It's not so much the Jim Crow era thing as he was probably looking for something to validate the idea for demolishing it, and he put his foot in his mouth. They want it their way. There could be many cool and fun architectural solutions for their properties. But I don't see this happening, unless he's removed and replaced with a more careful and reasoned director.
 
mainejeff said:
So this has turned into a full steam ahead "we must destroy Jim Crow era buildings" than "let's build an incredible new addition to the Portland Museum of Art"?

I see. Is the museum director associated with Disney? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...

I mean, by that standard, wouldn’t they also have to consider the MacLellan Building and the faux-temple Clapp House as candidates for destruction, given they were built pre-Civil War?
 
Just realized this. The Jim Crow era, primarily the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, was a set of laws in the south, not north. The director of the PMA didn't read about history before making his remark. This means that the Children's Museum or any other building in Maine from this period has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws because they were built and stand in the north, not south. Perhaps he was thinking the arch style of white pillars are also popular for plantation homes?
 
TC_zoid said:
Perhaps he was thinking the arch style of white pillars are also popular for plantation homes?
Click to expand...

I doubt that's the connect. He's more likely just trying to weaponize progressive/liberal ideology (e.g. trying to eliminate symbols, monuments or effigies to the Confederacy). Same idea as conservatives weaponizing culture war topics to rally their base, except coming from the other direction.
 
I actually believe the pillars / plantation similarity was exactly what he was referring to. It seems like the simplest explanation, anyway.
 
For a taller museum comparison (10 floors), and I think the PMA should do this, taller (8 stories) to decrease the footprint size to keep the Children's Museum, The Whitney is one of the best art museums that I have been to. Irrespective of the stunning views of Manhattan, add the connecting feature of The High Line and there is nothing more dynamic for a public art and design experience than this, or anywhere in the U.S., that is.


Whitney.jpg
 
Last edited:
I feel compelled to point out that the Whitney who founded the above museum - Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney - was the aunt (by marriage) of Joan Whitney Payson, wife of Charles Shipman Payson and permanent loaner of a substantial part of the PMA collection.
 
The Press Herald weighs in in support of the PMA expansion...
In general, the museum and the many supporters of the LEVER vision shouldn’t shy away from making a cold, hard case for the demolition of this building. The city stands to reap the benefits of a major investment that draws people to the museum. Despite a population boom and a growing collection of impressive work, museum visits have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. Congress Square is in bad shape right now – vacant buildings and units now threaten to outnumber those occupied.

The PMA’s imposing brick front and lack of an obvious entrance seems likely to have shut out infinitely more people than the white columns of the former Children’s Museum ever did. The museum has poured time and money into a proposal that promises to correct that and convert itself into an inviting mainstay for the general public.
Click to expand...
 
mainejeff said:
The PPH has spoken!
Click to expand...
They do have a good point. The Children's Museum building's historical significance and architectural characteristics are nothing special. And it's kind of a sore thumb look there too. Yeah, bring it down, so that this "Jim Crow Era" insult is gone forever. But then the Cobb building also has some not feeling good characteristics too. Look him up--he and his dad. They kind of don't fit in with today's appointments or commissions. Maybe that's why the Portland, Oregon progressive arch firm wants to blow a hole in the front, for a feel-good revenge metaphor.
 
And yet another opinion letter has appeared in the PPH today. It's from mother and son, both of whom were past presidents of Greater Portland Landmarks. It's another effective argument
to keep the former Children's Museum building. Not that I like it, or enough to give it some kind of exalted status, but why can't they flip it around and move it to Spring Street next to the Clapp House? It's a solution. They can find the money. They have many ties to wealth, including Scott M. Black. Look him up.

https://www.pressherald.com/2023/12/21/opinion-portland-museum-of-art-should-know-better/
 
My question is to the Dept of the Interior, is the old Childrens Museum/Chamber of Commerce/Church eligible for National Historic Status? Is the building beyond historic status due to renovations/changes over the past 30+ years. Would the building have to revert back to a church to become eligible? Next would be cost. Are historic tax credits available?
 
I was right about getting the popcorn for this one.

A key note from the letter TC linked: 142 Free Street isn't a contributing structure because it's very old, it's a contributing structure because of the renovations the Stevens's did in the 1920's. So the "do they need to reconstruct the steeple" question is pointless.

Who is running the PMA these days, and who is on the Board of Trustees? Is there no one local there anymore who understands both the significance of these things, and how the local politics work?

A bit of irony is that I'm not a fan of the Congress Street Historic District. I believe cities are properly a cacophony of multiple voices singing their architectural songs over years, decades, centuries. The Commerce and Chapman buildings sure as hell did not "fit in with their surroundings" when they were built in a city of 5-7 story 1870's brick. And so, I think trying to preserve Congress St. just because it happened to have been rebuilt largely all at once after the 1866 fire is wrong on principle. I think the whole brick thing has gone from a personality trait of the city to a fetish (the Federal Street wall of One City Center is ridiculous).

But, I accept there are benefits that come with it (the tax credits that allowed for the renovation of the Eastland, for starters), and I also accept that regardless of how I feel, it's the law. And the PMA shouldn't get away with blowing off long-standing public policy just because some folks in charge there think they're hot shit.
 
Last edited:
It has become a P.R. disaster for the PMA. The arch firm they hired is not qualified for this kind of project. The PMA needs to hire as a consultant, Elkus Manfredi Architects in Boston, to come up with a proper solution. They designed the idea behind the USM addition (Scott Simons took over after). They are brilliant. All that the PMA's director has been able to come up with for a rebuttal is, "The Children's Museum is from the Jim Crow era," therefore, or implied, it must be destroyed, wiped out from the present. They had decided to focus their efforts on checking all the right DEI boxes, instead. I've worked in national media my entire career with many stories to tell, and this is up there with some of the "best". (And I've got plenty of microwave popcorn in my kitchen.)
 
Last edited:
32951047_1821960251201726_406291764329054208_o.jpg

Curious as to how historically significant the building to the right of the Chamber of Commerce was when it was demolished along with the Libby Building?
 
I was junior high age, so I very well could have missed something, but I don't recall there being a lot of preservation fuss over the PMA expansion. But I think I've said here before (maybe or not in this thread), in the late 70's the stretch around Congress and Longfellow Squares had become something of a red-light district. The State Theater was subdivided into several porn theaters, at some point the Fine Arts (current Geno's) was a porn house as well, the Treasure Chest head shop was in one of the Congress Building storefronts with bongs in the window, and the Parisienne Sauna, in the building at Longfellow Square that has the New Orleans-style balconies, was advertising "Massage By Women". Plus, of course, the infamous Dunkin' Donuts. There was also the Paris Cinema on Oak St. that at some point (I know not when) switched to showing porn. I still believe that the sunken design of Congress Square Plaza was intended to subconsciously evoke a moat, trying to keep all that stuff west of High St. as much as possible, and the PMA was another part of the "Congress Square Revitalization" project.
 
And yet another opinion in the PPH. Fensterstock has been involved with the PMA and other museums for a while now, as both curator and artist, and knows the art world quite well. I follow her on Instagram, though her art is a bit above or beyond most. She has some good points with her argument. And the PPH is not allowing comments, for the obvious of reasons. Let's just move on here, and if the building has to come down, do it. I think an exciting new addition is far more important than not. And I hate the idea of ghosting the old children's museum facade within a new building. It's not worthy.

https://www.pressherald.com/2024/01...rd-portland-must-loosen-its-grasp-on-history/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top