I have been reluctant to comment on the controversy surrounding the Portland Museum of Art’s push to tear down the former Children’s Museum building. But as a former director of the PMA, I feel compelled to draw attention to some important realities.

The current unwise and unwarranted direction that the museum has chosen to take represents a striking violation of the values and traditions that have made the PMA a significant resource for Portland and Maine.

The demolition of 142 Free St. and the development of a massive but unnecessary structure is unwise because it ignores the meaningful way the identity of the museum is tied to the architectural heritage of Portland. It is also extremely unwise because it departs from financial reality and presents exaggerated and unsupportable projections for both income and attendance.

I was fortunate to come to the museum in 1993. The Charles Shipman Payson building had opened a decade earlier and established the PMA as an outstanding regional museum. However, the organization faced major financial hurdles and had recorded deficits for 11 straight years. It had an endowment of only $1.5 million.

With the help of a great team and an astute board of trustees, we consistently balanced the budget for the next 14 years, significantly increased attendance and membership, and enriched the endowment to $36 million. The key to this success was a commitment to creating major exhibitions that attracted audiences throughout the year and achieved particular success every summer.

The museum has strayed from this approach and appears to have lost the ability to create significant exhibitions. The result has been extremely regrettable. Over the last 15 years, annual expenses and entrance fees have doubled, far surpassing inflation, but there has been no gain in attendance. The endowment, despite generous gifts and bequests, has declined in value by more than 10% after adjusting for inflation.

The museum’s claim that it must expand is based on false assertions that current gallery space is inadequate for exhibitions and growing attendance. The truth is that attendance for the most recent decade has declined compared to the previous decade. The museum falsely claims it set a record for annual attendance in 2019 with 177,000 visitors. Back in the year 2000, attendance was 188,000, a level of success that did not in any way strain the facility.

The architect Henry Cobb was justifiably proud of the Payson Building, a landmark he designed both with boldness and with great sensitivity to its surroundings. During his annual visits, we often agreed that moving the museum store to 142 Free St. would yield very worthwhile results. We envisioned the Free Street building not only as the ideal location for the store, but also for addition of gallery space, offices and educational programs. I had always hoped that the building would become available and was encouraged when the PMA made the acquisition in 2019.

Cobb would be deeply disturbed that the current PMA leadership wants to erase 142 Free St. from Portland’s architectural history. Even more disturbing, however, is the idea that the Payson Building should be compromised and devalued by blocking up its entrance and tunneling through its façade. These unwise and unwarranted distortions show a remarkable insensitivity to what Cobb achieved for Congress Square and the city of Portland.

The recent layoff of more than 10% of the museum staff points to an organization that may be living beyond its means. The hypothesis that a large expansion, a rooftop café and vague speculations about partnerships with community organizations will lift the PMA out of a pattern of financial underperformance is dubious and untrustworthy.

Adding thousands of square feet will not automatically double attendance and revenue, although it surely will create major financial burdens, including costs for heating, air conditioning, maintenance, staffing and security. The proposed expansion is an expensive indulgence, a folly that will do very little to further the museum’s real mission or future success. The museum and the city deserve something better than a glass box that has only superficial claims to being useful.

If the museum insists on continuing down this road, we should hope that Portland City Council will inform it that it does not have the right to ride roughshod over the city’s historic preservation ordinance.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Opinion: Renewable gas will help Maine reach its climate goals

Next »

Opinion: Maine must approve funding for rape kit tracking system