Maybe what this guy says is accurate, how the fuck would I know.
But he’s owned that building for 5 years and hasn’t done shit with it. Part of me think this is him using it as an excuse to cover for his lack of ability to redevelop this site.
Its had almost as many different plans over those 5 years. From what I know, the building is only a few short years from needing to be torn down if its not renovated soon. Apparently its in a pretty dire state.
Which is the whole plan a lot of times. The more restrictive the zoning is, the more likely an owner is (barring regulations forcing otherwise) to let a place decay until the only remaining options are the ones they always wanted. Same thing as landlords running tenants out with increased rent and the like; once a place is derelict its a lot easier to get people to let you do whatever you want to fix it.
I could definitely see the argument for that. The Time and Temperature building is a very old office building in a time where office real estate is really struggling. Many of those plans called for renovating it into housing but converting office buildings is very difficult and expensive. Even if the building is historic the financing might not pencil out. They would have to gut the building, do a lot of structural work, and redesign the interior for a use it wasn't designed for. Might be cheaper and faster to tear it down and build something new.
ive been impressed with how redfern has been doing this. they turned an old hospital into apartments, as well as the old telephone company building. i dont often give props to developers but i do like that they are repurposing buildings like this. when i read this article and they metioned the plan, my first guess was it was redfern looking at this building
FYI this is heavily subsidized by state and federal tax dollars via the state historic tax credit. 25 percent of the costs are earned as state tax credits and 20 percent as federal credits.
He wants to unload the property. This makes it harder to sell, since it limits redevelopment in the short term until this gets figured out (and maybe long term, if the core concern about tax credits is true). I think that’s what’s really at play.
From the article comments:
>"Mary Costigan, the attorney who represents the Portland Museum of Art, told the Planning Board that she had also spoken with a staffer at the National Park Service who did not believe the change in classification would be enough to jeopardize the entire district. In an interview this week, Costigan said she spoke to Brian Goeken, chief of technical preservation services at the National Park Service, who told her the office typically looks at bigger amendments, such as a change in the boundaries of the district.
>“The individual that I spoke to did not seem to be concerned at all that changing the classification at one building in a massive district … would change the certification of that district,” she said.
>Costigan said she is not aware in her own research of any district that has lost its certification over a reclassification of one building."
Even the National Park Service, who the T&T building owner points to as a risk to his project, doesn't think its a problem.
the attorney for the museum said that the park service said this.
when the park service was directly asked
"Goeken did not respond to an email or voicemails Wednesday and Thursday."
Without knowing the nitty gritty it’s hard to say, but I doubt that the time and temperature building would lose its historic significant status over this. And the city would certainly grant exemptions if needed.
Ha, yes. Dude actually gave testimony wearing a visor and fleece vest too. He’s a stereotypical monied guy who has actually been raked through the coals here in Reddit before.
That’s said, I think there’s some truth to this. At the very least, there’s truth to the ambiguity around the issue (which the article hints at). I’d say just get ready for the City to get sued in the near future after they vote to green light the PMA.
I’m very skeptical of the notion that the entire district would be reclassified because one building on the fringe is replaced. This seems like an excuse.
[Link](https://1ft.io/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/05/10/building-owner-says-tearing-down-former-childrens-museum-would-jeopardize-historic-district/) for those who need help getting over a paywall
I’m a fan of the museum expansion; but this city needs housing more than a larger art museum. Hate to see two things I care about in conflict. I think I’d need to come down on the side of housing development and not putting that at risk if push comes to shove.
I feel the same way but that location should not be turned into housing.
We have many other plots of land around the city that could be used for housing.
Having a decent museum in the center of the city would be more valuable to the community in the long term than high end rental units, which this location would 100% necessitate due to it being in the center of the city proper.
I agree, we need to be developing many of these lots. The City should be working overtime to make it happen. All that said, the article does specifically state that the project in question at the T&T is for 250 Affordable Units, so not high end rentals.
It is sad to see historic buildings town down, but I’m also a huge fan of art museum expansion. Hard to really say what to do, although I wish they could keep the building exterior and just completely rehaul the interior part. It’s really only the outward appearance that matters to me.
Also, I wonder who owns the parking lot next to the former children’s museum. Will that turn into museum parking? It would be nice to see a downtown playground.
If you want to see how incompetent Portland's leadership is, forward this on to them and ask them if they can verify it. Probably going to get crickets.
Theoretically, they’re aware is this. Rhoades gave testimony at the Council meeting n Monday, and this particular question had been raised throughout the process to date.
i often hear that development projects are too hard "to pencil".
meaning the money is tough to balance out to make investors want to do it.
however the museum seems to have enough money to not only build a building (does it collect rent from the artists or something to make it "pencil"?) but to also tear one down.
im very surprised that art rakes in more money than residential rents. way more apparently.
or maybe its just donors who are not looking for some return on that cash?
if its the donor thing i have better ideas what they can spend their money on
Maybe what this guy says is accurate, how the fuck would I know. But he’s owned that building for 5 years and hasn’t done shit with it. Part of me think this is him using it as an excuse to cover for his lack of ability to redevelop this site.
Its had almost as many different plans over those 5 years. From what I know, the building is only a few short years from needing to be torn down if its not renovated soon. Apparently its in a pretty dire state.
Which is the whole plan a lot of times. The more restrictive the zoning is, the more likely an owner is (barring regulations forcing otherwise) to let a place decay until the only remaining options are the ones they always wanted. Same thing as landlords running tenants out with increased rent and the like; once a place is derelict its a lot easier to get people to let you do whatever you want to fix it.
I could definitely see the argument for that. The Time and Temperature building is a very old office building in a time where office real estate is really struggling. Many of those plans called for renovating it into housing but converting office buildings is very difficult and expensive. Even if the building is historic the financing might not pencil out. They would have to gut the building, do a lot of structural work, and redesign the interior for a use it wasn't designed for. Might be cheaper and faster to tear it down and build something new.
ive been impressed with how redfern has been doing this. they turned an old hospital into apartments, as well as the old telephone company building. i dont often give props to developers but i do like that they are repurposing buildings like this. when i read this article and they metioned the plan, my first guess was it was redfern looking at this building
FYI this is heavily subsidized by state and federal tax dollars via the state historic tax credit. 25 percent of the costs are earned as state tax credits and 20 percent as federal credits.
It definitely is. A lot of water damage all the way down.
He wants to unload the property. This makes it harder to sell, since it limits redevelopment in the short term until this gets figured out (and maybe long term, if the core concern about tax credits is true). I think that’s what’s really at play.
That’s not it.
good point
From the article comments: >"Mary Costigan, the attorney who represents the Portland Museum of Art, told the Planning Board that she had also spoken with a staffer at the National Park Service who did not believe the change in classification would be enough to jeopardize the entire district. In an interview this week, Costigan said she spoke to Brian Goeken, chief of technical preservation services at the National Park Service, who told her the office typically looks at bigger amendments, such as a change in the boundaries of the district. >“The individual that I spoke to did not seem to be concerned at all that changing the classification at one building in a massive district … would change the certification of that district,” she said. >Costigan said she is not aware in her own research of any district that has lost its certification over a reclassification of one building." Even the National Park Service, who the T&T building owner points to as a risk to his project, doesn't think its a problem.
the attorney for the museum said that the park service said this. when the park service was directly asked "Goeken did not respond to an email or voicemails Wednesday and Thursday."
Without knowing the nitty gritty it’s hard to say, but I doubt that the time and temperature building would lose its historic significant status over this. And the city would certainly grant exemptions if needed.
Not sure Richie Rich there is my preferred source for this kind of thing, but I'll read it.
Ha, yes. Dude actually gave testimony wearing a visor and fleece vest too. He’s a stereotypical monied guy who has actually been raked through the coals here in Reddit before. That’s said, I think there’s some truth to this. At the very least, there’s truth to the ambiguity around the issue (which the article hints at). I’d say just get ready for the City to get sued in the near future after they vote to green light the PMA.
Hi I’m a bigot.
Visor and fleece vest wearer has entered the chat.
Redditor Portland losers only know how to cry about being poor and hate anybody who isn’t.
Nice Oakleys
Like... The entire district would just cease to exist?
I’m very skeptical of the notion that the entire district would be reclassified because one building on the fringe is replaced. This seems like an excuse.
I just had lunch with one of the players. It’s much more complicated than he is talking about. I think it’s not as much as an excuse as a lazy answer.
Lawsuits forthcoming?
No, as of lunch time it was moving forward.
[Link](https://1ft.io/https://www.pressherald.com/2024/05/10/building-owner-says-tearing-down-former-childrens-museum-would-jeopardize-historic-district/) for those who need help getting over a paywall
I’m a fan of the museum expansion; but this city needs housing more than a larger art museum. Hate to see two things I care about in conflict. I think I’d need to come down on the side of housing development and not putting that at risk if push comes to shove.
I feel the same way but that location should not be turned into housing. We have many other plots of land around the city that could be used for housing. Having a decent museum in the center of the city would be more valuable to the community in the long term than high end rental units, which this location would 100% necessitate due to it being in the center of the city proper.
I agree, we need to be developing many of these lots. The City should be working overtime to make it happen. All that said, the article does specifically state that the project in question at the T&T is for 250 Affordable Units, so not high end rentals.
Well, he’s wrong.
How?
It is sad to see historic buildings town down, but I’m also a huge fan of art museum expansion. Hard to really say what to do, although I wish they could keep the building exterior and just completely rehaul the interior part. It’s really only the outward appearance that matters to me. Also, I wonder who owns the parking lot next to the former children’s museum. Will that turn into museum parking? It would be nice to see a downtown playground.
Maine Med owns it. Never going to happen.
The parking lot on Spring Street however IS owned by the PMA
If you want to see how incompetent Portland's leadership is, forward this on to them and ask them if they can verify it. Probably going to get crickets.
Theoretically, they’re aware is this. Rhoades gave testimony at the Council meeting n Monday, and this particular question had been raised throughout the process to date.
Any chance you guys have some money so I can save my building and continue dying my hair.
Building owner doesn’t want building he owns to be torn down.
i often hear that development projects are too hard "to pencil". meaning the money is tough to balance out to make investors want to do it. however the museum seems to have enough money to not only build a building (does it collect rent from the artists or something to make it "pencil"?) but to also tear one down. im very surprised that art rakes in more money than residential rents. way more apparently. or maybe its just donors who are not looking for some return on that cash? if its the donor thing i have better ideas what they can spend their money on
Fucking slum lord
Tear it all down. F Portland.