The mistruths contained in the Feb. 15 letter challenging a Munjoy Hill Historic District need to be corrected.
The writer (Anne Manganello) asserts that supporters of a Munjoy Hill Historic District want it to “stop big boxy condos” and demolitions. While those might be beneficial byproducts, I and my like-minded neighbors primarily support a historic district to preserve the mid-19th century and early 20th century architectural fabric of the neighborhood.
It is true that buildings designated “noncontributing” (because less than 50 years old or loss of architectural integrity) may be demolished without further Historic Preservation review. They comprise less than 20 percent of district structures, and include newer buildings that are, realistically, not likely to be demolished.
But it is not true, as the writer incorrectly asserts, that “contributing” structures can be “knocked down, too, with approval.” “Contributing” structures, over 80 percent of the buildings in the district, may be demolished only if they are recategorized as “noncontributing” (a mistake in the initial designation) or if the owner proves severe economic hardship absent demolition. That has happened only rarely in 30 years in Portland’s other 11 historic districts.
The writer also overlooks the fact that historic district protections include standards to ensure new buildings (on vacant lots or replacing demolished, noncontributing structures) will be compatible with adjacent historic structures.
The Feb. 15 letter touts the ReCode effort. It is not an either-or choice. After ill-considered 2015 zoning amendments, both ReCode revisions and a Historic District are needed to manage change on Munjoy Hill.
Barbara Vestal
Portland
Send questions/comments to the editors.
