The Portland Museum of Art is asking to change the status of 142 Free St. from “contributing” to “non-contributing.” Here are the criteria for such a change under the city’s historic preservation ordinance. There are two prongs.

First, there are six minimum criteria for a building to be classified as “contributing.” It only needs to meet one:

• Its value as a significant example of the cultural, historic, architectural, archaeological or related aspect of the heritage of the city, state, region or country

• Its location as a site of a significant historic or prehistoric event or activity

• Its identification with a person or group who significantly contributed to the cultural, historic, architectural, archaeological or related aspect of the development of the city, state, region or country

• Its exemplification of a significant architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship

• Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer or building whose individual work is significant to the history of development of the city, state, region or country

• Its representation of a significant cultural, historic, architectural, archeological or related theme expressed through distinctive areas, sites, structures or objects that may or may not be contiguous

Second, the ordinance says the building must have “sufficient integrity of location, design, condition, materials and workmanship to make it worthy of preservation or restoration.” For example, if the roof is caved in, a building might not have integrity of condition.

The Portland Museum of Art and its supporters say:

• The building does not meet any of the criteria outlined in the first part of the ordinance.

• Renovations to the building over time – such as the addition of a cupola, new windows and a dormer – have diminished its integrity of design, materials and workmanship. The setting also lacks historic integrity because the building is surrounded by parking lots and the Charles Shipman Payson Building, built in 1983.

• At the Planning Board, museum director Mark Bessire noted that one of the characteristics in the official description of the Congress Street Historic District is “change,” which highlights the evolution of Portland’s cultural and commercial center. An attorney for the museum wrote: “The museum’s current plans to utilize the site for a modern expansion of the museum to further its mission of Art for All is more in line with the history of Congress Street than freezing a building in its 2009 form.”

Opponents, including Greater Portland Landmarks, say:

• The building clearly meets the standards outlined in the first part of the ordinance in part because it was renovated by renowned architect John Calvin Stevens in 1926, and the columned façade from that time exemplifies the Colonial Revival style and is still largely intact.

• The building still has integrity because it is still easily recognizable from its 1926 renovation and any alterations made since would still be reversible.

• Carol De Tine, board vice president of Greater Portland Landmarks, said: “It is important that it represents an era in Portland’s history where Congress Street was becoming the location for businesses. … Some of (those buildings) survive in their original state, and others were repurposed, as was the Chamber of Commerce building. It’s really that careful consideration of the history and the change over time of the district that really places this building solidly in the category of contributing to the district.”

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Bestsellers: ‘James,’ ‘Maine: A Love Story’

Next »

At Bowdoin, drawings entrance and Asian American art is reframed