A majority of the Portland City Council seemed poised Monday to allow the demolition of the former Children’s Museum and Theatre of Maine. But two councilors offered an amendment that raised legal concerns, and the council ultimately postponed the decision that will set the course for the Portland Museum of Art.

The museum is asking the city to remove a historic designation that protects its neighboring building from demolition. Tearing down the brick building at 142 Free St. would allow the museum to proceed with a sweeping new expansion it has planned for that site.

But two city boards already have said the historic preservation ordinance doesn’t allow such a change, and preservationists have warned that allowing the museum to proceed would set a negative precedent.

The outcome will decide whether the museum can proceed with its $100 million capital campaign or must go back to the drawing board.

The Portland City Council will have the final say and took up the question Monday. But their deliberations quickly spiraled into confusion and concern about a legal challenge. So they decided to push the item to their next meeting in two weeks.

“The decision that the council makes tonight, there’s a fair likelihood that it’s going to be appealed by one side or the other,” corporation counsel Michael Goldman said.

The building at 142 Free St. is considered a “contributing structure” to the surrounding Congress Street Historic District, which means it cannot be razed. Built in 1830 and later renovated by John Calvin Stevens, it has been home to a theater, a church, the Chamber of Commerce and the Children’s Museum and Theatre of Maine.

The Portland Museum of Art bought the neighboring property in 2019 with an eye toward growth, and the children’s museum vacated in 2021 for a new home on Thompson’s Point. Since then, the art museum has used the space mostly for offices. The museum has applied to change the classification to “non-contributing,” which would allow for the building’s demolition.

The applicant started at the Historic Preservation Board, which recommended against the change. The planning board took up the question next and ultimately agreed with the preservation board. At every meeting, more people have submitted letters and taken a turn at the microphone.

Museum leaders, city officials, board members and attorneys have debated exactly what criteria should inform the eventual decision on the application. Ultimately, both boards took a narrow view of the historic preservation ordinance.

The ordinance has two prongs that define a “contributing” building. First, the City Council needed to decide whether the building met one of six criteria, such as whether it is an example of a significant architectural style. If it does, the City Council must next decide whether it has “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.

AMENDMENT OFFERED

Two councilors – Kate Sykes and Anna Trevorrow – offered a last-minute amendment that would reclassify the building and allow demolition. Sykes said the building lacks integrity because it was actually a reconstruction of earlier architectural styles, not an authentic representation of the time. Three other councilors – April Fournier, Anna Bullett and Roberto Rodriguez – expressed interest in that option.

“When a building is reclassified, we have that ability to look at that new information that has come to light from the historical record and even honestly new ways of thinking about things,” Sykes said. “The political dynamics of historic preservation do change over time.”

Councilor Regina Phillips and Mayor Mark Dion both said they felt the building should keep its current designation based on the language in the ordinance. Dion said he trusts the judgment and findings of the Historic Preservation Board and the planning board.

“It’s almost as if there was an underlying recognition that the law is not in our favor,” he said. “So let’s talk about outcome, let’s talk about glitter, let’s talk about future, let’s really get into the idea of what it means to preserve the past. And that past is worried that if they yield to the future, all is lost. Both sides argue the end of western civilization.”

But some also said they could not support the new language without more time to consider it, and the city’s attorney said he had not reviewed the amendment to see if it would stand up in court. They voted to postpone the vote for two weeks while Goldman considered the proposed language.

Officials have received hundreds of letters on the issue over the past six months, and councilors heard nearly two hours of public comment Monday. Both sides presented arguments on those specific criteria, and some spoke to the language of the ordinance. But much of the public comment addressed the broader implications of this decision.

Mark Bessire, the museum’s director, described the project as critical for the future of both the museum and Congress Square.

“Supporting this reclassification will lead to a $100 million investment in our community where businesses are closing and commercial occupancy is down,” Bessire said. “Supporting this reclassification will let art show the way to a healthy society and healthy public policy. A visionary project like this comes around maybe once in a generation. Working with our city and our communities together we can build a platform for the future that our children will be proud of.”

OPPONENTS EXCORIATE PMA

Greater Portland Landmarks has spearheaded the opposition. Carol De Tine, the board’s vice president, said no property owner has “so blatantly disregarded” the ordinance criteria.

“Believing that they somehow hold a privileged status in this community, leaders of the PMA are convinced that they can get you to give them a pass on an ordinance you are charged with enforcing,” she said. “Don’t buy this. The expansion of the museum does not depend on tearing down 142 Free Street. The PMA already has more than enough property to build on. Didn’t they use their future expansion to justify tearing down the YWCA building and the valuable housing it once provided? No, the PMA isn’t lacking land; they are lacking imagination – the imagination to boldly incorporate the old with the new as has been done so many times throughout this city.”

Supporters urged the Portland City Council to see the potential impact of the planned building with its sweeping design, free spaces and attraction to new visitors.

Chris Newell, a Passamaquoddy and former director of the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, acted as a consultant on Wabanaki history to the architecture team that created the concept design. He said the proposed building takes that input to heart.

“We can design a building that pays attention to more history than just the last 200 years,” he said. “We can design a building that pays attention to the last 12,000 years of Wabanaki occupation of this land.”

Opponents cautioned that the councilors would weaken the historic preservation ordinance by approving the project.

“They have shown no respect for Portland’s historic preservation ordinance,” Bruce Roullard, board president of Greater Portland Landmarks, said of the museum. “They want you to accept that they are so special, that the new building is so magnificent that you should exempt them from the ordinance criteria that every other property owner and developer in the city has to abide by.”

Copy the Story Link