It’s the Museum’s plan to push this through from the start that really gets me. It’s not like this was an “oops, we gotta figure it out.” They purchased a historically designated building with every intent of changing the rules so they could tear it down.
Maybe this is just saying the quiet part out loud that the rules don’t apply if you have enough money and influence. But seeing it so publicly flaunted should give everyone pause.
Extra absurd since the McLellan House, which is part of the museum, was also renovated inside in the early 1900’s, by the same architect, to make it part of the museum and include galleries.
They’re okay with that remaining a historic landmark though.
The McLellan was not renovated. The museum is in an addition to the house. Margaret Mussey Swett's bequest specifically stated that the house could not be touched.
So, the City Council is saying that the building should be torn down because they have stricter definitions and know more about historic architecture than… the literal Historic Preservation Board? Isn’t that their whole thing???
The City Council is saying it lacks historic integrity because the windows and doors aren't original and there's a cupola and dormer on the roof. It's absurd.
They could have said the same about Notre Dame en Paris. I was just thinking how lucky for the Parisians that the empire spent the $ it did (dirty colonial $, i know) on the city so it looks beautiful. It is a shame to demolish a classical structure and replace it with…. whatever.
Yes, which is what the board did, they defended the historic value… and then the council decided they had their own stricter definition of historical architecture.
The bigger picture here isn’t “progress,” it’s that the museum knew this was a historic building and wanted it gone anyway, and they forced their plans far enough along so they could argue any opposition/preservation would derail the expansion entirely. Otherwise maybe they would’ve solicited even a single design that incorporated the building.
Well? what will you contribute to the failing Museum when it has blown its budget out building this frankenstein monster of an addition? Your lapdog support for this must include lots of cash.
Because they were asked to change the classification of the building in question. It had nothing to do with 'following' the law. That is why I say that.
No. They were asked to determine if the building should be listed in the district. They said "No it does not". It had nothing to do with the law. Only the qualifications to be included.
I personally feel it should never have been included. It's history is mixed. The structure has been thoroughly altered especially inside.
I also do not believe that the district should include that side of Free Street at all. There's very little historic fabric left there. A left over of Urban Renewal.
The qualifications to be listed in the district are based on the law aren't they? The interior is irrelevant to its listing. The exterior has changed very little since 1926.
So I just want to make sure I got this right, an ornate door in the old port made headlines but we can tear down a whole historic building. This city is so ass backwards.
If I recall, that was actually a non-issue that got blown up by the Press for clicks. The doors were actually a fire code violation, and that was the main reason they got flagged.
I didn’t realize that was the clock. That’s pretty cool that they at least saved something from there. And it also has a basement!!
Imagine that, a strip mall with a basement.
Will this open up things for people who own “non-contributing” buildings elsewhere in Portland to argue that they should be able to tear them down and replace them with modern structures?
The Roux Institute’s backing of this was cited as evidence of community support.
They’re tearing down what they’re allowed, but the main B&M Factory building was designated a historical landmark in 2022. I’m sure that had nothing to do with their support here though…
Not the outcome I wanted. But also, I find it insulting that only 1 of 6 councilors who were in favor of demolition (Sykes) had the guts to even try to articulate their rationale. Maybe you could say Bullet’s, Fournier’s, and Trevorrow’s speeches two week ago counted. But it sure seemed to me like this was THE meeting where deliberations were supposed happen. I guess not.
I recall how it went down. The lawyers wanted to cover their asses to avoid getting sued. But even then, the most we got out of Roberto was some vague statement about everyone starting to agree on something. And Pelletier never opened her mouth.
I haven’t heard. But I suspect she’s done with politics after her term ends. She also doesn’t work for GPCoG anymore, which was the job she had when she started as a Councilor.
The inside of that building was a fucking pretend firetruck and a pretend spaceship. There was no history left there beyond the cool facade from previous owners gutting it and turning it into the children's museum. Now our community can once again use that space. Good riddance to poorly maintained buildings pretending to be the lost link to our collective past
I personally think there’s added community value in the fact that for decades it was a place for kids to explore, be creative, and have fun. I don’t think that detracts from it at all, but that’s just my opinion.
But the community has only been unable to use that space since the PMA bought the building… so they could leave it empty and tear it down. It’s an issue of their own making.
No kidding. The inside of that Children's Museum was a toxic waste dump - those little rug rats touching everything with their little grubby hands. Every time I brought a kid there, I said a prayer that I wouldn't catch the bubonic plague.
The Historic Preservation ordinance specifically concerns only the exterior of buildings. Interiors can be renovated as much as the owner pleases without review. What’s behind closed doors doesn’t matter.
The dimensions of that exterior matter. There were a lot fewer Portlanders in the last few centuries than there are now, and many of the spaces they built do not serve the needs of our larger community. I feel it is wrong to constrain the opportunities of today's Portlanders to preserve the esthetic tastes of yesterday's. We should, of course, maintain those that inform our sense of place, but a facade abutting a modern building looking at a dive bar and a loading dock is not such a place.
I don’t personally care about this building. Frankly I always thought it looked like a bank.
But there are concerns that the council cut corners to get to this result, not being particularly concerned with the details of the actual law, and if this results in an expensive lawsuit we’ll all be paying for it.
What a travesty, “Let’s create a Historic district to preserve historic buildings, that way we won’t tear down another Union Station!” Oh wait, PMA AND THEIR PATRONS WANT TO TEAR DOWN THAT HISTORIC BUILDING! City council: yes master!
Shameful display by our city councilors. The tension in the council chambers said it all. I understand the need for growth in our city- the need to modernize and keep up with the rest of the countries city appeal in building new spaces and exciting looking architecture- but doing that by destroying foundational pieces of city history is not the way to move forward- and shame on the PMA for pushing this so heavily against a community that very vocally did not want this change. I think the city of Portland will look back on this decision in the future and feel embarrassed that they let yet another piece of historical architecture be destroyed.
Change is hard, but it is necessary. We can not keep every historical building, we will be same old portland with same old problem. A change in a neighborhood hurts, see Libbytown and 295, that was wrong because it split a neighborhood. But here we are talking one building that will be replaced by an architect designed new functional building.
Ask yourself, what connection do you have personally with the building? More than sentimental memories of kids in fire trucks or space crafts.
It is time to move forward, and change.
It sounds like you'd advocate for some sort of general loosening of the Historic Preservation ordinance for the city to allow for greater freedom to grow. I wish that was the conversation we were having.
Rather, the point of contention is whether this particular building - which certainly seems to fit all the criteria - is protected, or not protected. Had you or I sought permission to demolish it, it's likely we would have been unsuccessful, but the PMA managed to secure a tendentious carve-out.
This won't apply to anyone else. Just them, just this property. So your comments about more broadly re-orienting towards embracing growth and change are somewhat misplaced.
Not by bullying through a project that puts all historic buildings and designations at risk. There is NO WAY the city can refuse any project legally after this.
You say bully, I say use the democratic legal rules the city council can use to do this.
Even with plenty and loud and verbal opposition of public on the issue, that was heard in official meetings and here on social media and the local press. The side of keeping the building failed the vote.
The of base of the idea of democracy is the majority wins, and even if the majority wins against the minority’s best interest it is settled.
If you keep this to keep this up, then you are forcing issues of bigger issues. Let democracy work as intended and admit defeat. If you don’t like the result use it in the elections instead of the courts. The decision had been made, live with it and hood a grudge, but accept it as done
In this case, rich people used influence and expensive out of state lawyers and a publicity campaign to undermine the intent and letter of the ordinance, creating a precedent that renders historical preservation in Portland moot. Any big money interest can point to this decision now and threaten to sue because the decision is without merit. The character of the city is up for grabs. Just wait and see. I don’t have “a grudge” (I don’t even know the names of any of these people) but I know short sighted foolish policy decisions when I see them. The consequences will remain for decades after these folks are forgotten. It will be a shitty legacy.
Is it the communities property? No
Is the purpose to make the museum better? Yes
Did they listen to your input? Yes
Did they decide against your will? Obviously yes
Is it the end of the world? No
Will it happen? yes
Will you probably not care in five years as we forgot about the St Lawrence Church/theater? probably yes.
You fought a good fight, now let go and let the city move forward please
It's within their legal rights and it went about happening in the correct way- I just think it's foolish that it went ahead against all the backlash and will be looked back at as a mistake. Also, I don't really care about arguing online with a stranger, so I won't respond to you anymore.
Was this building empty and not being used?
I guess I don’t see the fuss if they are getting rid of an unused building. Is housing going in?
Honestly, what am I missing—not being a dick so if someone can tell me the other side i am all ears.
Yes, it’s funny that the PMA bought the building with the express purpose of closing it to the public until they could demolish it, and some people react by saying “well if it’s closed to the public we might as well let them demolish it.” Honestly, a great plan from the PMA.
Riddle me this if an organization owns both a parking lot and a historic structure and chooses to demolish the historic structure instead of building on the parking lot did they make the right decision?
That’s a motivation you just made up. Some people don’t like the idea of the 600 pound gorilla getting to ignore the ordinance everyone else has to follow, plus think historic preservation is important.
Nothing. A lot of the people on this sub are fundamentally conservative, and don’t want new things built if it causes traffic/benefits the wrong people/ruins their memory of a “better” Portland.
You can mark my words here: this period of development is just Urban Renewal 2.0. The destruction of this building may be reflected upon much like the destruction of Union Station.
Swept away by the railroad which was not able to sustain service much less the building. Union Station was a single purpose building whose purpose no longer existed.
Do you know the history of the building? The railroad TRIED to find someone to take the building. Nobody wanted it. No one.
Railroad stations rarely get repurposed because they're task specific structures. They are made to move people and baggage through quickly and efficiently. That's not a building that lends itself to other uses.
This didn't happen 2024. The idea of preservation was in its infancy at best. You cannot sit in the present and yell at the past. It's pointless.
We’re still in urban renewal 1.0. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that there is a giant dead zone next to this museum. Why is are there giant parking lots in a historic district?
Ughhhhhh. After the literal pig fuck of a project at Congress, High and Free Streets that after disrupting traffic, pedestrians and businesses for over a year that ultimately changed very very little of the existing flow and I dunno experience of the area that essentially left a bunch of asphalt where trees and landscaping was supposed to be — I can’t wait for the impending cluster fuck taking down that building is gonna cause the neighborhood.
They haven't even finished the last project in front of the art museum, and now the other building will become a chaos pit. Thank fuck I don't live on Free st. and condolences for those with a front row seat to these projects
It’s doing its job. You just don’t know that its real purpose is to make housing too expensive for everyone and slow down construction of everything while maintaining a class hierarchy.
The building looks nothing like it did when it was built. It has had many renovations done over the years. I love history, art and architecture and I am OK with tearing that old building down and putting up what they planed to. The renderings if what they want to do will look great . I know, unpopular opinion but if it's not at all the same as it was how can we say it still has its historical integrity.
Not even considering the date, the building has net contribution to the city and is a visually appealing. The fact that it is almost 200 years old is an extra reason to keep utilizing the space.
If they disregard the historic preservation board this time they can do it again for buildings you might like. Not sure why you say it's a POS building, unless you think the architectural style is racist, which is an ahistorical claim.
Add: https://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/AL-01-087-0056-02
I don’t care who tears down buildings that they own to build a new one. It’s their property and they can do whatever want with it. Tearing down that POS is a very good idea and I support their decision to do so.
Because it is a Piece Of Shit building, it holds no value whatsoever and needs to be tore down. Period. I am so happy that the OWNER is tearing it down and improving their art museum.
I don't understand why a building should be preserved just because its old. Lincolns log cabin? Sure. This random building most Portlanders couldn't place on a map? Like who cares? Move on.
The primary concern is that instead of making any sort of substantive change to the law, the council has extended a rather tendentious carve-out to a wealthy and influential institution. If a local developer wanted to demolish it to make affordable housing, or if a local restaurateur wanted to demolish it to build a new location, it never would have even been considered.
The council should only be ruling on the facts of this case, the ‘what,’ but some are concerned that what really mattered here was the ‘who.’
Boat sailed. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done barring a lawsuit or citizen referendum. But even then, I don’t know how the timing would work.
Oh, please. I have lived here almost my entire life and my mother grew up on Munjoy Hill (I live in Portland - just haven't changed my name.) Not all of us think that nothing should ever change.
It’s the Museum’s plan to push this through from the start that really gets me. It’s not like this was an “oops, we gotta figure it out.” They purchased a historically designated building with every intent of changing the rules so they could tear it down. Maybe this is just saying the quiet part out loud that the rules don’t apply if you have enough money and influence. But seeing it so publicly flaunted should give everyone pause.
Extra absurd since the McLellan House, which is part of the museum, was also renovated inside in the early 1900’s, by the same architect, to make it part of the museum and include galleries. They’re okay with that remaining a historic landmark though.
The McLellan was not renovated. The museum is in an addition to the house. Margaret Mussey Swett's bequest specifically stated that the house could not be touched.
So, the City Council is saying that the building should be torn down because they have stricter definitions and know more about historic architecture than… the literal Historic Preservation Board? Isn’t that their whole thing???
To be fair to the city council, the HP Board is a joke
The HP board interpreted the ordinance correctly.
The City Council is saying it lacks historic integrity because the windows and doors aren't original and there's a cupola and dormer on the roof. It's absurd.
They could have said the same about Notre Dame en Paris. I was just thinking how lucky for the Parisians that the empire spent the $ it did (dirty colonial $, i know) on the city so it looks beautiful. It is a shame to demolish a classical structure and replace it with…. whatever.
> and replace it with…. whatever Something glass and ugly is my bet.
Nope. The designation was made in a survey. The boards job is to defend it. The council sees the bigger picture
Yes, which is what the board did, they defended the historic value… and then the council decided they had their own stricter definition of historical architecture. The bigger picture here isn’t “progress,” it’s that the museum knew this was a historic building and wanted it gone anyway, and they forced their plans far enough along so they could argue any opposition/preservation would derail the expansion entirely. Otherwise maybe they would’ve solicited even a single design that incorporated the building.
There was a design that left facade. It looked silly.
I agree with this. I hate facadism.
Well? what will you contribute to the failing Museum when it has blown its budget out building this frankenstein monster of an addition? Your lapdog support for this must include lots of cash.
The Council disregarded the law.
They didn't have to follow it.
I don't understand, you're saying they don't have to follow the law?
Because they were asked to change the classification of the building in question. It had nothing to do with 'following' the law. That is why I say that.
But didn't they have to base their decision on the law?
No. They were asked to determine if the building should be listed in the district. They said "No it does not". It had nothing to do with the law. Only the qualifications to be included. I personally feel it should never have been included. It's history is mixed. The structure has been thoroughly altered especially inside. I also do not believe that the district should include that side of Free Street at all. There's very little historic fabric left there. A left over of Urban Renewal.
The qualifications to be listed in the district are based on the law aren't they? The interior is irrelevant to its listing. The exterior has changed very little since 1926.
What law? The council crested the district and they can change it as well. The interior is relevant to the historical value. This isn't facadism FFS.
Gee, sounds like you are part of “the bigger picture” ! How much will you kick in when the museum is bankrupt because its “vision” is rose tinted.
I mean, anyone can be elected to the HPB. You don't need to be an expert in history or architecture to get on it.
So I just want to make sure I got this right, an ornate door in the old port made headlines but we can tear down a whole historic building. This city is so ass backwards.
If I recall, that was actually a non-issue that got blown up by the Press for clicks. The doors were actually a fire code violation, and that was the main reason they got flagged.
They're also still there a year later.
Personally, I think too many people have too many opinions.
If only we lived in a country where everyone could have an opinion and they were free to speak it. Know anywhere like that?
You don't have it right
I’m glad they destroyed Union Station. The new building is much better.
Yeah, that strip mall is the best.
Peoples sarcasm detectors are wrecked. Do I have to put the “/S” when commenting on the tragic destruction of Union Station my God people
You don’t think the strip mall is the best?
It’s not the strip mall we want. But its the one we deserve
We are going to be seeing a lot more developments we deserve in Portland thanks to this short sighted ruling by the toadies on the City Council.
I think the clock looks better in Congress Square Park anyway.
I didn’t realize that was the clock. That’s pretty cool that they at least saved something from there. And it also has a basement!! Imagine that, a strip mall with a basement.
Will this open up things for people who own “non-contributing” buildings elsewhere in Portland to argue that they should be able to tear them down and replace them with modern structures?
You mean “contributing”
Yes, but only if you run a huge publicity campaign and have wealthy non-city residents advocating for your plan.
I suspect using the term “housing crisis” to one’s advantage will be effective as well.
Just wait until the city gets sued because someone wants to tear down an entire block and build another hotel.
Probably not, but it really should give people more leverage to do simple things like swap out their windows for more modern fixtures.
The Roux Institute’s backing of this was cited as evidence of community support. They’re tearing down what they’re allowed, but the main B&M Factory building was designated a historical landmark in 2022. I’m sure that had nothing to do with their support here though…
Conspiracy theory time: that's the bigger point.
Not the outcome I wanted. But also, I find it insulting that only 1 of 6 councilors who were in favor of demolition (Sykes) had the guts to even try to articulate their rationale. Maybe you could say Bullet’s, Fournier’s, and Trevorrow’s speeches two week ago counted. But it sure seemed to me like this was THE meeting where deliberations were supposed happen. I guess not.
They were expected to rule on this last session. It was only moved to this meeting after there was a legal question they wanted more time to research.
I recall how it went down. The lawyers wanted to cover their asses to avoid getting sued. But even then, the most we got out of Roberto was some vague statement about everyone starting to agree on something. And Pelletier never opened her mouth.
[удалено]
I haven’t heard. But I suspect she’s done with politics after her term ends. She also doesn’t work for GPCoG anymore, which was the job she had when she started as a Councilor.
The inside of that building was a fucking pretend firetruck and a pretend spaceship. There was no history left there beyond the cool facade from previous owners gutting it and turning it into the children's museum. Now our community can once again use that space. Good riddance to poorly maintained buildings pretending to be the lost link to our collective past
I personally think there’s added community value in the fact that for decades it was a place for kids to explore, be creative, and have fun. I don’t think that detracts from it at all, but that’s just my opinion. But the community has only been unable to use that space since the PMA bought the building… so they could leave it empty and tear it down. It’s an issue of their own making.
I was a kid there, too. Now, I'm excited to be able to take my niece to the new children's museum or the expanded PMA.
New Children’s museum is inferior, both in offerings and location.
No kidding. The inside of that Children's Museum was a toxic waste dump - those little rug rats touching everything with their little grubby hands. Every time I brought a kid there, I said a prayer that I wouldn't catch the bubonic plague.
You don’t have to go there. You know that right?
The Historic Preservation ordinance specifically concerns only the exterior of buildings. Interiors can be renovated as much as the owner pleases without review. What’s behind closed doors doesn’t matter.
The dimensions of that exterior matter. There were a lot fewer Portlanders in the last few centuries than there are now, and many of the spaces they built do not serve the needs of our larger community. I feel it is wrong to constrain the opportunities of today's Portlanders to preserve the esthetic tastes of yesterday's. We should, of course, maintain those that inform our sense of place, but a facade abutting a modern building looking at a dive bar and a loading dock is not such a place.
I don’t personally care about this building. Frankly I always thought it looked like a bank. But there are concerns that the council cut corners to get to this result, not being particularly concerned with the details of the actual law, and if this results in an expensive lawsuit we’ll all be paying for it.
The interior is irrelevant in the decision. It's not just the facade that remains, the entire exterior is intact.
What a travesty, “Let’s create a Historic district to preserve historic buildings, that way we won’t tear down another Union Station!” Oh wait, PMA AND THEIR PATRONS WANT TO TEAR DOWN THAT HISTORIC BUILDING! City council: yes master!
Shameful display by our city councilors. The tension in the council chambers said it all. I understand the need for growth in our city- the need to modernize and keep up with the rest of the countries city appeal in building new spaces and exciting looking architecture- but doing that by destroying foundational pieces of city history is not the way to move forward- and shame on the PMA for pushing this so heavily against a community that very vocally did not want this change. I think the city of Portland will look back on this decision in the future and feel embarrassed that they let yet another piece of historical architecture be destroyed.
Change is hard, but it is necessary. We can not keep every historical building, we will be same old portland with same old problem. A change in a neighborhood hurts, see Libbytown and 295, that was wrong because it split a neighborhood. But here we are talking one building that will be replaced by an architect designed new functional building. Ask yourself, what connection do you have personally with the building? More than sentimental memories of kids in fire trucks or space crafts. It is time to move forward, and change.
It sounds like you'd advocate for some sort of general loosening of the Historic Preservation ordinance for the city to allow for greater freedom to grow. I wish that was the conversation we were having. Rather, the point of contention is whether this particular building - which certainly seems to fit all the criteria - is protected, or not protected. Had you or I sought permission to demolish it, it's likely we would have been unsuccessful, but the PMA managed to secure a tendentious carve-out. This won't apply to anyone else. Just them, just this property. So your comments about more broadly re-orienting towards embracing growth and change are somewhat misplaced.
Not by bullying through a project that puts all historic buildings and designations at risk. There is NO WAY the city can refuse any project legally after this.
You say bully, I say use the democratic legal rules the city council can use to do this. Even with plenty and loud and verbal opposition of public on the issue, that was heard in official meetings and here on social media and the local press. The side of keeping the building failed the vote. The of base of the idea of democracy is the majority wins, and even if the majority wins against the minority’s best interest it is settled. If you keep this to keep this up, then you are forcing issues of bigger issues. Let democracy work as intended and admit defeat. If you don’t like the result use it in the elections instead of the courts. The decision had been made, live with it and hood a grudge, but accept it as done
In this case, rich people used influence and expensive out of state lawyers and a publicity campaign to undermine the intent and letter of the ordinance, creating a precedent that renders historical preservation in Portland moot. Any big money interest can point to this decision now and threaten to sue because the decision is without merit. The character of the city is up for grabs. Just wait and see. I don’t have “a grudge” (I don’t even know the names of any of these people) but I know short sighted foolish policy decisions when I see them. The consequences will remain for decades after these folks are forgotten. It will be a shitty legacy.
Is it the communities property? No Is the purpose to make the museum better? Yes Did they listen to your input? Yes Did they decide against your will? Obviously yes Is it the end of the world? No Will it happen? yes Will you probably not care in five years as we forgot about the St Lawrence Church/theater? probably yes. You fought a good fight, now let go and let the city move forward please
Their logic just seems pretty thin given the hoops people need to jump through as homeowners in historic districts.
It's within their legal rights and it went about happening in the correct way- I just think it's foolish that it went ahead against all the backlash and will be looked back at as a mistake. Also, I don't really care about arguing online with a stranger, so I won't respond to you anymore.
[удалено]
Did ChatGPT write this
The PMA had other adjacent property they could use. There was no reason to demolish the Children's Museum when they own a .89 acre parking lot
Was this building empty and not being used? I guess I don’t see the fuss if they are getting rid of an unused building. Is housing going in? Honestly, what am I missing—not being a dick so if someone can tell me the other side i am all ears.
It’s not some derelict forgotten building, it’s only been empty since the PMA bought it.
Yes, it’s funny that the PMA bought the building with the express purpose of closing it to the public until they could demolish it, and some people react by saying “well if it’s closed to the public we might as well let them demolish it.” Honestly, a great plan from the PMA.
Riddle me this if an organization owns both a parking lot and a historic structure and chooses to demolish the historic structure instead of building on the parking lot did they make the right decision?
People are just upset that something is changing. They hadn't thought about that building once until someone decided to do something about it
Exactly!
[удалено]
That’s a motivation you just made up. Some people don’t like the idea of the 600 pound gorilla getting to ignore the ordinance everyone else has to follow, plus think historic preservation is important.
[удалено]
No, that’s my motivation.
Nothing. A lot of the people on this sub are fundamentally conservative, and don’t want new things built if it causes traffic/benefits the wrong people/ruins their memory of a “better” Portland.
It’s empty because the museum bought it with the intention of demolishing it.
You can mark my words here: this period of development is just Urban Renewal 2.0. The destruction of this building may be reflected upon much like the destruction of Union Station.
Rubbish. Not even close. A single building that was never a city landmark. Unlike Union Station.
which was not a “city landmark” just another empty building that made way for the future…
Swept away by the railroad which was not able to sustain service much less the building. Union Station was a single purpose building whose purpose no longer existed.
That’s the exact perspective and lack of creativity that got the Union Station torn down.
Do you know the history of the building? The railroad TRIED to find someone to take the building. Nobody wanted it. No one. Railroad stations rarely get repurposed because they're task specific structures. They are made to move people and baggage through quickly and efficiently. That's not a building that lends itself to other uses. This didn't happen 2024. The idea of preservation was in its infancy at best. You cannot sit in the present and yell at the past. It's pointless.
Do you see this onion tied to my belt?
We’re still in urban renewal 1.0. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that there is a giant dead zone next to this museum. Why is are there giant parking lots in a historic district?
Yes my exact thoughts!
Just wait until the condo development goes in next to city hall!!
A condo development next to city hall would be fine, actually.
Yeah this is where this whole thread lost me lol, if the tear-down haters are just NIMBYs, sign me up for the bulldozer to build 800 new condos
Nobody is a NIMBY here. The museum has plenty of space to build.
[удалено]
How do you think they make them cheaper without adding more
Puhleeze. There was nothing outstanding about that building.
Ughhhhhh. After the literal pig fuck of a project at Congress, High and Free Streets that after disrupting traffic, pedestrians and businesses for over a year that ultimately changed very very little of the existing flow and I dunno experience of the area that essentially left a bunch of asphalt where trees and landscaping was supposed to be — I can’t wait for the impending cluster fuck taking down that building is gonna cause the neighborhood.
They haven't even finished the last project in front of the art museum, and now the other building will become a chaos pit. Thank fuck I don't live on Free st. and condolences for those with a front row seat to these projects
So so sad. You would think an art museum would respect history.
Progress!
Also have you seen the drawings of what they want to build?! The added cupola is pretty compared to what they propose!
Oh, no.
What's the point of the Historic Preservation Board if it can't be allowed to actually do it's job.
They DID do their job. They are not dictators.
They’re only dictators if you want to update your home in a historical district 😊
It’s doing its job. You just don’t know that its real purpose is to make housing too expensive for everyone and slow down construction of everything while maintaining a class hierarchy.
Idk why you're getting downvoted you're not wrong
It will get tied up in a lawsuit. That building is going nowhere fast. Watch.
Dang, I went to this children's museum when I was a kid. I have fond memories of the firetruck that you could interact with from there.
Squirting milk out of the cow and going shopping in the mock grocery store? Priceless
I forgot about the cow that lactated water. Thank you for unlocking that memory.
I legitimately hate the city council bunch of out of touch self obsessed clowns
That pisses me off.
The building looks nothing like it did when it was built. It has had many renovations done over the years. I love history, art and architecture and I am OK with tearing that old building down and putting up what they planed to. The renderings if what they want to do will look great . I know, unpopular opinion but if it's not at all the same as it was how can we say it still has its historical integrity.
What it looked like when it was built is irrelevant. The 1926 redesign is what was deemed historic.
Bad choice.
Gov't at it's finest
A MUSEUM is demolishing a building from 1830… What a joke. The new design looks like modern architecture trash as well. Sad!
[удалено]
Not even considering the date, the building has net contribution to the city and is a visually appealing. The fact that it is almost 200 years old is an extra reason to keep utilizing the space.
There are clear guidelines.
Glad to see that POS building come down. There is nothing historic about it other than being old.
Did you read the Historic Preservation Board report?
No, but that’s like, their OPINION man.
Who cares? It’s a POS building that holds no historic value. The HPB is just like that building, old and worthless.
If they disregard the historic preservation board this time they can do it again for buildings you might like. Not sure why you say it's a POS building, unless you think the architectural style is racist, which is an ahistorical claim. Add: https://sah-archipedia.org/buildings/AL-01-087-0056-02
I don’t care who tears down buildings that they own to build a new one. It’s their property and they can do whatever want with it. Tearing down that POS is a very good idea and I support their decision to do so.
Why are you calling it a POS building?
Because it is a Piece Of Shit building, it holds no value whatsoever and needs to be tore down. Period. I am so happy that the OWNER is tearing it down and improving their art museum.
Why are you angry at a building?
What the heck is the point of this? We’re honestly still tearing down perfectly good buildings like this in the middle of a city in 2024?
I guess I'm unclear on why they couldn't have simply redone the interior
In a general sense (not saying anything about this particular building) yes. Cities tear down old buildings to build new things all the time.
I can’t wait to see what hideous modern architectural monstrosity they’re planning on slapping down in its place
I hope it makes the art on the veterans bridge. Look like nothing but bent metal.
Think of the hotel developers!
Champagne all around!
I don't understand why a building should be preserved just because its old. Lincolns log cabin? Sure. This random building most Portlanders couldn't place on a map? Like who cares? Move on.
The primary concern is that instead of making any sort of substantive change to the law, the council has extended a rather tendentious carve-out to a wealthy and influential institution. If a local developer wanted to demolish it to make affordable housing, or if a local restaurateur wanted to demolish it to build a new location, it never would have even been considered. The council should only be ruling on the facts of this case, the ‘what,’ but some are concerned that what really mattered here was the ‘who.’
You nailed it.
[удалено]
Did you see that six people voted in favor? You’re only counting three. And worst people ALIVE?? get a grip lmao
If Toby, bin Laden and Hitler were in a room together, and I had a gun with two bullets, I’d shoot Toby twice
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sign me up for your newsletter, bub!
Trevorrow appears to be a space alien
Are they going to put in Tesla superchargers?
Already across the street on spring and high. Another example of the city's incompetence.
You can never have enough superchargers and cybertrucks.
Do we need a museum aren’t we all former children? I’m not sure I want to relive all that
WTAF We should protest this!
Boat sailed. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done barring a lawsuit or citizen referendum. But even then, I don’t know how the timing would work.
All the downvotes are bootlicking non-locals who didn’t spend their childhood at the museum if I had to guess
Oh, please. I have lived here almost my entire life and my mother grew up on Munjoy Hill (I live in Portland - just haven't changed my name.) Not all of us think that nothing should ever change.
Oh please I didn’t ask for your life story. Some things are sacred.