There is an opportunity for compromise on the 58 Fore Street development, even as the city gears up for another winner-take-all referendum on development.

The issue up for a vote is whether the city should regulate scenic views over private property, even if a proposed development is otherwise compliant with all ordinances. That will be decided in November and the only choices on the ballot will be yes and no.

Jim Brady, an owner of the former Portland Co. complex, unveils plans for historic preservation in the development of the site. Derek Davis/Staff Photographer

Next week the Planning Board will consider a request for a historic preservation district designation for much of the old Portland Co. complex on the eastern waterfront. We urge the developer, city planners and historical preservation advocates to work out a compromise that addresses most of their needs even if it does not satisfy all of everyone’s concerns. This is too complex a decision to be made by a simple yes or no vote.

There is no question that the former locomotive factory tells an important part of Portland’s history and deserves to be preserved. It’s also true that restoration of century-old buildings is expensive, and may not result in buildings that have commercial value today.

This calls for a sensitive strategy to reuse some of the historic buildings and preserve a sense of what went on at the site between 1847 and when it shut down for good in 1982, while making full use of a piece of real estate that could contribute as much to the modern economy as the facility did in the past. The developer C2B has expressed an interest in such an approach, and the city should take it up on that plan.

It would be a mistake to demand restoration of all of the historic buildings, regardless of where they are and in what condition they are in. Reuse may not be economically viable, and requiring it could interfere with other public benefits. It may be better to replace a building if doing so advances other goals, such as enhancing public access to the waterfront.

These are not “yes” or “no” questions. They involve balancing different harms and benefits. They require a political solution, not one dictated by one side or the other.

A solution that results from compromise would be best for the city as a whole. All parties in this debate should make every effort to find a path forward that everyone can live with.

Related Stories