Portland Museum of Art Expansion | Portland

Moreover, if 142 Free Street had been flipped around and placed next to the Clapp House, it could have been three structures connected at the back of the main PMA with an all-glass corridor pathway (behind and somewhat invisible) representing three different types of architecture and historical uses (McLellan House and rear gallery, Clapp, 142 Free Street). This would have become a magnificent offering and juxtaposition to the Cobb addition and the proposed one, of which looks like its advancement is imminent. And with the recent donation of the Judy Glickman Lauder collection, perhaps the museum would have become noteworthy at an international level (substantial historical significance with these photos). Now, it's the defacing and compromising of the Cobb addition and the destruction of a building that could have been re-purposed. Good architecture is primarily about improving or enhancing the human experience. Many in the city and surrounding area are now pissed-off by the arrogance of the PMA. They, the PMA, have come out with the wrecking ball in several different ways. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
I've never seen so much vitriol in the PPH comments section.

Untitled 1187.jpg
 
TC_zoid said:
Next week I'll post images of the article pages from the 1983 feature and cover piece in Architectural Record praising the Cobb addition. It's truly an architectural and artistic crime to deface this building. But anything is possible with "woke ideology" gone wild. And that's what it is if you dig into the Portland, OR firm and the PMA director. Yes, Cobb is perhaps the human archetype for everything they hate, but whatever he was--there is no hard proof--he was a partner in the I.M. Pei firm in Boston, one of the most prominent architectural firms in the world. And now the little 'ole PMA is going to send a big F.U. to his legacy and to all architecture simply because of their manufactured feelings. And never forget the PMA director rationalizing to raze 142 Free Street in his interview quote in the PPH referencing its connection to the Jim Crow era simply because of its type of architecture.
Click to expand...
Please don't bother. The addition is not the holy grail. I do not care who designed it. EVERY designer makes mistakes and the addition to the PMA is no exception. It is mediocre and deserves no effort at preservation. Who gives a damn WHO designed it? Blah, blah, blah. It lacks balance in its original design and will gain that in the new design. A critic does not a good designer make.
 
I think I'm the outlier with hating the Toshiko Mori design. Not for encapsulating the old Chamber of Commerce building, but for the "saw tooth" roof design. Ugly AF. The Lever design, while simple, was the only one that caught my eye.

The Chamber building is nothing special; anything special about it has long been stripped away. The only redeeming qualities it has is the facade and cupola. Shave those off and there's not much there. I'd be all for moving the building to Spring Street. Similarly I'd love to see the Brian Boru building turned and moved to the corner, but I digress.

But aside from the Chamber Building, I'd rather have the Libby Building back, as well as the churches and other buildings that were originally a part of Congress Square. Far more attractive than the news building, for example.

Except I wouldn't bring back the stubby pharmacy building on what is now the sunken park. It would have been better to see that lot developed with a taller building (or even something art deco). The park is making a rebound, but still not a fan.

So unless we can bring back all or any of these architectural masterpieces that we previously tore down ....... as far as the Chamber building ....... I just don't care.

Portland already lost a lot of great buildings (homes, theaters, churches, train stations) that would have made the city even more unique and desirable. Portland continues to build stubby eastern-European looking buildings, covet their empty lots, fear monger about shadows and wind, and have lost multiple opportunities for grand scale redevelopments over the decades. What a city Portland COULD have been. But Portland is stupid and lacks vision on many fronts. Saving the Chamber doesn't seem to be one of the cases of innovative vision though. Move it to Spring Street if people care, otherwise let it go. The best of Portland was already lost.
 
Off-topic from the museum, I'll point out that One Congress Square wasn't actually built as a home for WCSH. In my earliest memory, it was offices for New England Telephone. I don't know if that was because they wanted to keep an intown office location when most of the operations moved to Davis Farm Road or what; my memory doesn't go back that far. But if you can recall the building before the ADA lift and Weather Deck were added, that pyramid structure once said "One Congress Square" on it in small black capital serif letters, and before that, in the same font it said "New England Telephone".
 
It’s cynically ironic that the argument for justifying the tear-down of 142 Free Street is in great part due to the fact that it was significantly altered over the decades, while simultaneously arguing that altering the Payson Building next door is somehow an improvement.

John Calvin Stevens was one of the architects on 142 Free and Henry Cobb was the architect of the Payson but these new, never-heard-of-them architects from Oregon are trusted with these changes.

The PMA is in the wrong on this. It feels wrong not to be rooting for the institution, but it feels more wrong to root FOR them during this process.
 
The more I look at and think about the new design, maybe it's not that bad after all. Portland is certainly not Boston, and thus almost anything is better, really. I'm focused and excited now for 10 World Trade Center in Boston. When that's done, this area of the Seaport will be discussed and visited by the world.
 
GIL said:
It’s cynically ironic that the argument for justifying the tear-down of 142 Free Street is in great part due to the fact that it was significantly altered over the decades, while simultaneously arguing that altering the Payson Building next door is somehow an improvement.

John Calvin Stevens was one of the architects on 142 Free and Henry Cobb was the architect of the Payson but these new, never-heard-of-them architects from Oregon are trusted with these changes.

The PMA is in the wrong on this. It feels wrong not to be rooting for the institution, but it feels more wrong to root FOR them during this process.
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a 50-year minimum before a structure legally can start to qualify for historic preservation.
 
markhb said:
Please correhttps://archboston.com/community/attachments/upload?type=post&context[thread_id]=6653&hash=07c8f864351472480750120cb5eacc48ct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a 50-year minimum before a structure legally can start to qualify for historic preservation.
Click to expand...
Totally — I was referring to the architectural (and architects) significance more than purely their age, and part of any museum’s mission is inherently good stewardship of significant works — new or old.
 
DanielPWM19 said:
I think I'm the outlier with hating the Toshiko Mori design. Not for encapsulating the old Chamber of Commerce building, but for the "saw tooth" roof design. Ugly AF.
Click to expand...
I've been with you from the beginning, I just tried to find the (any) good in some of my earlier posts.

DanielPWM19 said:
Except I wouldn't bring back the stubby pharmacy building on what is now the sunken park. It would have been better to see that lot developed with a taller building (or even something art deco). The park is making a rebound, but still not a fan.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I think it's great having a park like this in the core. I don't even have a functional issue with it, every event I've been to there (or seen driving by) fits well in the space. And it's used quite a bit. That said, I wouldn't (haven't) complain about a cosmetic update.
 
TC_zoid said:
The more I look at and think about the new design, maybe it's not that bad after all. Portland is certainly not Boston, and thus almost anything is better, really. I'm focused and excited now for 10 World Trade Center in Boston. When that's done, this area of the Seaport will be discussed and visited by the world.
Click to expand...
Maybe Portland isn't Boston but do we need to lower our standards because of that?
 
PlantArch said:
Maybe Portland isn't Boston but do we need to lower our standards because of that?
Click to expand...
I think the general difference between Portland and Boston is that in the latter, the city works with developers at a higher or more thought-out level. In Portland, the city seems to be an obstacle to create anything smarter or conducive to a master plan for what's best. Bayside is a prime example. This mess and de facto failure would not happen in Boston. A master plan (a la The Seaport) would have been created and the various sides would work together. And the city should be talking up and doing whatever it can to expediate and encourage something bigger for the Roux Center build. For my work I travel to many cities across the U.S. and nearly all would beg for something like this. Change the approach in Portland by fixing these obstacles/personnel and include some prominent architects and planners. I think the current representatives for Portland are off-putting and provincial. Boston has the Harvard and M.I.T. intelligentsia to be accountable to. It would be embarrassing in front of those minds to fall short, so it doesn't. It has also redeveloped North and South Stations. Impressive.
 
Whether we all agree or not ... that the design of the addition is good, that the chamber building should be moved/demolished, or the shitty leadership at PMA ... I consider any expansion of the museum with attractive architecture to be a "WIN" for Portland. I'm kind of tired of the decades of "losing" with big development plans.

Midtown? Original design should have been built. Misguided NIMBY's win.
Cotton Street Development? Thanks 2008 economy.
Multiple proposals for Top of the Old Port? Failed.
Tower next to Back Bay on Cumberland? NIMBY.
Heck ... even the Gondola from SoPo would have been cool, albeit far fetched.

That's not to say all or any of these were good. Portland Fore is still a weird tragedy that I'm not sure will ever be built, or if the scale is just too massive. Roux institute deserves a better location (sorry, but the bean factory is not worth saving, but whatever). Portland Square development is nice ... but anything less than 20 stories on those parking lots is bullshit. Franklyn Street/Arterial ... FFS can we please figure this out? We're never going to get a time machine to get back all the beautiful architecture we lost. But all Portland seems to do is kick the proverbial can down the street. And the can is full of shite.
 
The Boston Globe has a story summarizing the whole drama this morning. Paywalled, of course, but Kate Sykes gets a quote of hers in a headline in a Boston paper, so she might be happy. Wish I could see the comments.
 
markhb said:
The Boston Globe has a story summarizing the whole drama this morning. Paywalled, of course, but Kate Sykes gets a quote of hers in a headline in a Boston paper, so she might be happy. Wish I could see the comments.
Click to expand...

Okay, here's the Boston comment fun... (click to enlarge)

Untitled 1222.jpg
Untitled 1223.jpg
Untitled 1224.jpg
Untitled 1225.jpg




Untitled 1226.jpg
Untitled 1227.jpg
Untitled 1228.jpg
Untitled 1229.jpg



Untitled 1230.jpg
Untitled 1231.jpg
 
Thanks very much! Interesting to see that the Globe attracts a similar mix of more- or less-informed commenters as the PPH (or did I miss somewhere that the museum is floating the idea of a taxpayer bailout?)
 
markhb said:
Thanks very much! Interesting to see that the Globe attracts a similar mix of more- or less-informed commenters as the PPH (or did I miss somewhere that the museum is floating the idea of a taxpayer bailout?)
Click to expand...
The typical Maine commenter is far more lively, that's for sure. Bostonian comments I think are a bit more education based, or thought out, so not impulsive. The one thing to point out here is several mentioned the Cobb 1982 addition was too tall and imposing, a kind of wall, so not good architecture. But they don't know the idea behind it, that it was to create a similar scale with the other surrounding buildings opposite from the intersection. It was written about in the Arch Digest feature from 1983.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top