As the owner and developer of a number of properties in southern Maine, including total restorations of four buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, I am troubled by the Portland Museum of Art’s current attempt to make an end-run around Portland’s historic preservation ordinance. Preserved historic buildings are a meaningful part of what has made Portland so widely celebrated as a special place. This newspaper’s longtime home, now the Press Hotel, is a prime example of how historic buildings can be modernized and given new life.

In Portland, the rules are clear. If a building is deemed a contributing structure within a historic district, as is the 142 Free St. building, it cannot be demolished for reasons of expediency — regardless of who the owner is. The granting of historic preservation status to a building or district is a thorough and deliberative process; it is not a temporary condition until something “bigger and better” comes along. The PMA knew this when they purchased the building just a few years ago.

I hope that the Portland City Council will not bow to the pressure being applied by the PMA, and will uphold the city’s historic preservation ordinance. While working with historic buildings requires creativity and extra diligence, there are many of us who have found ways to develop successful projects within Portland’s historic districts.

What’s important is that we all play by the same rules. That includes the PMA.

Ford Reiche
Freeport

 

 

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter: Watching political influence on the Supreme Court

Next »

Letter: Proposed PMA addition smacks of Trumpism