December 7, 2022

Portland Museum of Art Campus Unification + Expansion

International Design Competition

Dear Design Competition Jury:

As the region’s nonprofit organization devoted to historic preservation, our mission is to ensure that Greater Portland preserves its sense of place for all and builds vibrant, sustainable neighborhoods and communities for the future. We offer these comprehensive comments on the proposals for expanding the Portland Museum of Art’s campus to provide guidance as you deliberate on which firm to select.

In addition to the architecturally and culturally significant Payson Building (built 1983) that is the signature facade of the institution, the PMA campus contains four historically and architecturally significant buildings: the McLellan House (built 1801), the Clapp House (built 1832), Sweat Memorial Galleries (built 1911), and 142 Free Street (former Children’s Museum, built 1830 and altered to its current configuration in 1926). Three of these historic buildings—all but the McLellan House—bear the marks of one of Maine’s most influential and important architects, John Calvin Stevens, who also was responsible for alterations to the museum’s satellite property on Prout’s Neck, the Winslow Homer Studio. The PMA is a major cultural institution dedicated to promoting the arts, a discipline that includes architectural history. As evidenced by its stewardship of Stevens’ legacy through ownership of a critical mass of his work, the PMA remains a critical node for citizen engagement with our architectural heritage and preservation of the same. Thus, its historic buildings directly contribute to the PMA’s mission of “Art for All.”

It is with this responsibility and collegial spirit in mind that we encourage the jury to select the firm that will best incorporate these historic properties into the campus design scheme. The design should refrain from elements that “wall off” properties abutting the Spring Street side of the campus and instead should encourage new architecture and landscaping to better incorporate these elements, even further highlighting and celebrating them as integral to the museum’s mission. Likewise, designs that overshadow or overpower them and the Payson building, the museum’s most-recent landmark of the twentieth century, do a disservice to the PMA’s bright future as a major city institution.

The four firms currently suggest retaining the McLellan, Clapp, and Sweat buildings, all of which are contributing structures both to Portland’s local Congress Street Historic District and the (federal) Spring Street National Register District. Yet, none of the proposed designs account for the fact that 142 Free Street is also a contributing building to both historic districts. As such, 142 Free Street enjoys preservation protections against demolition or reduction to a facade based on its significance as a structure of nearly 200 years and association with notable architects, including John Calvin Stevens. At the same time, its location helped dictate and inform the scope and design of the Payson building, as that facade was always in conversation with that of 142 Free Street.

While there is not a definitive statement in the RFQ regarding the preservation OR demolition of 142 Free Street, the language used, including reference to this area as the “site” for the “new building,” strongly suggests the PMA’s desire for demolition. We feel it is critical to understand the PMA’s intention for this historic building and that the PMA justify any desire or need for removal. As presented, none of the four finalists’ plans would meet requirements set forth in the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Is demolition necessary to meet the PMA’s stated goals? Is it possible to explore how the existing building could be incorporated into a new campus design? We look forward to the opportunity for the preservation community to engage with the selected design team in advancing a publicly-supported vision for the future of the museum that honors historic architecture as “Art for All.”

We offer these comments to be constructive rather than detractive. We hope the jury will select a winner who has demonstrated experience working with historic places and spaces. The selected design firm will necessarily have to work with the city’s Historic Preservation Board’s design review process as the plans take shape. A comprehensive design team should exhibit both sensitivity and creativity in looking to unite the campus’s historic and contemporary buildings. This is key to successfully creating a community-supported landmark of the twenty-first century. Making a bold architectural statement is not inappropriate. In fact, we are excited about this project and expect that it will further establish the importance of PMA as the heart of the Arts District. As the museum looks to enhance its actions on accessibility and equity, we hope that you will also prioritize the stories that the historic structures on your campus represent. As the city’s historic preservation advocacy organization, we look forward to being actively involved in discussions about the future of this historic campus.

Sincerely,

Sarah Hansen, Executive Director
C. Ian Stevenson, Director of Advocacy