I am perplexed. I assume the Portland Museum of Art knew 142 Free St. had protection when it bought it. I assume the PMA knew it would face opposition to any plan for demolition. Why did the PMA choose not to have its cake and eat it, too? It could easily have included the preservation of that building as a given in the program it gave to its competing architectural firms. Architects today are adept at including historic buildings among new structures. Why did the PMA choose to provoke controversy where it did not need to be?
Based on my 50 years of experience working in and with art museums and with historic preservation efforts around the country, I’ve learned that the best museums are good stewards of their own collections and their own buildings, as well as of their community’s history and resources. They forge alliances for the public good – they do not provoke unnecessary controversy.
Unfortunately, now we know that the Portland Museum of Art cannot be trusted to be good stewards of this community’s history and architecture. So sad; it could have had it all. Makes one rethink plans to donate works of art to it. Can it be trusted to preserve and care for them?
Judith Sobol
Falmouth
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Comments are no longer available on this story