Plans Filed To Demolish Nearly 100-Year-Old Highland Inn

The historic building, established in 1927, awaits approval from the City for demolition. Its Owners earlier this year fought against turning Poncey-Highland into a Historic District.
Photo via Facebook.

A permit has been filed with the City of Atlanta to demolish the nearly 100-year-old Highland Inn & Ballroom Lounge building, at 644 North Highland Avenue NE. The firm hired to expedite the demolition filing confirmed its authenticity with What Now Atlanta Friday saying approval has been delayed due to the historic nature of the building. 

Sign up now to get our Daily Breaking News Alerts

Opt out at anytime

It’s unclear why property owners are looking to demolish the four-story structure or what might be built it its place. Calls and emails to the Inn Friday went unanswered.

In March 2020, the Poncey-Highland neighborhood where the Highland Inn is located voted to create the Poncey-Highland Historic District. Highland Inn owner Thomas Carmichael, who also owns the North High Ridge Apartments, urged his tenants to vote against the plan, according to Curbed Atlanta. He warned that a historic district would raise rent and complicate building maintenance.

“[Carmichael] has worked very, very hard to keep his rents low and affordable, and that’s obviously a hot-button issue right now,” David Metzger, an attorney for Carmichael, told Curbed. “A historic district would make it more costly to do business.”

The plan proposed by the neighborhood had several changes that differentiate itself with traditional historic districts. For one, it allows upper-story additions to historic commercial and residential properties as long as they keep within the aesthetic of the community. However, modern additions are allowed towards the rear of the building.

These plans have been in talks since 2019 when a group of residents started the historic districting process to push against “uncontrolled development,” as the AJC reported. Back then, Carmichael was still against the plans. 

“I want [the zoning] open-ended because we don’t know what the future holds,” Carmichael told the AJC. However, at the time, a resident told the AJC that his concern extends beyond Carmichael, saying “I’m not afraid of Carmichael’s development. I’m afraid of who he might sell to.”

This story is developing.

23 Responses

  1. “Not in my backyard!” Scream the few.

    Why does the city allow only a portion of current residents Of the area enact restrictive zoning to the detriment of future residences and renters. This is to protect current property values of owners and will negatively distort the housing market driving prices up and discouraging density and development, driving up prices in the long run.

    NIMBY-ism has no place in Atlanta as we look to failed examples in the Bay Area and other cities. We should be up-zoning and incentivizing the development of new housing and density creating more mixed use communities.

    Very disappointed in this outcome.

    – Renter in Poncey Highlands

    1. So a transient renter feels the need to tell actual (historic) property owners how to plan their
      neighborhood for the future. Got it…

      If you don’t like it, you can move yourself to one of the many up-zoned, new housing, mixed use
      developments anywhere in the city. That’s one of the perks of being a renter.

      The historic zoning that’s been proposed for Poncey-Highland is very watered down compared to a neighborhood like Inman Park.

      1. So only current property owners can belong to a neighborhood? Renters are not part of and should be excluded from the community? Got it.

      2. “ So a separate homeowner feels the need to tell actual (historic) property owners of the highland inn how to plan their future. Got it…”

        1. If it was “a separate homeowner,” you might have a point.
          However it was 259 out of 358 residents that voted for historic designation.
          You must’ve gone back for seconds and thirds when Carmichael was passing out the Kool-Aid.

          1. If you owned a building that was falling down under it’s own weight you would most likely not want to see a Historic Group enacted that may not care about your burdened position. This is how people are bankrupt. The building needs to be replaced with a newer, tenant friendly- ada compliant, architecturally pleasing mixed use that allows local businesses to thrive and that allows nice affordable apartments above it!

            1. If the building is falling down, it should have been condemned a long time ago. There’s still a business running out of it.
              There have been much larger & broken down buildings in Atlanta that have been rehabbed.
              Why would this property owner allow his building to be “falling down?”
              I call BS on that. It’s not the first time that some property owner has let an
              historic building fall down…

    2. While I love the Highland Inn and would be sad to see it go… you’re completely right. Long-term we’ve gotta get a handle on NIMBYism, it’s poisoning the real estate market and driving in-affordability.

      Historic preservation CAN be done right. This obviously isn’t an example of that… jumping into action to block a development once it’s already on the table. The choice about whether to and how to protect properties should be made in advance and should take account of the very real trade-offs in density and affordability.

      1. The historic zoning process was started way before anybody knew he was going to tear down the Highland Inn– it’s not just now being addressed to block a new development.

    3. Have you read the regulations? This is a YIMBY approach. FAR has been substantially increased on Ponce, North Highland and the BeltLine. No one has lost. Many have gained. Property owners and developers in the mixed use subareas can choose between commercial, residential, or a mix of uses depending on demand. Existing affordable housing is preserved. Read the regulations before slamming them!

      1. I’m not sure Carmichael wants to own “existing affordable housing” though.
        Even though he conned his tenants into believing that the historic zoning regulation would raise rents.
        I live in Inman Park, and our historic regulations are much more stringent than the ones proposed for P-H.
        We made it somewhat work. Still a lot of ugly developments on the perimeter of the neighborhood…

  2. With all the brainiac architects and developers here in the city, why couldn’t The Highland Inn be saved and incorporated into a broader and more dense development, similar to that of Portman’s development surrounding the H M Patterson Funeral Home on Spring St? May sound too simplistic, but…

    1. Well there’s not that much open land around the Highland Inn. There is that parking lot beside it though.
      I wouldn’t mind a visually appropriate building going in there– but if Carmichael doesn’t own it, he can’t profit from it, which is what it’s all about for him.

  3. The neighborhood should let Carmichael tear down North High Ridge Apartments, and let him put up whatever mixed use, cookie cutter nonsense, that he wants (within reason of course).
    And all you tenants paying cheap rent there, can move back in when the rents have doubled, and the retail spaces are vacant.

  4. Carmichael can build whatever he wants in Alpharetta or Smyrna or any number of suburban neighborhoods around Atlanta. Poncey Highlands wants to stay historic with a different vibe than newer neighborhoods. Leave it alone.

  5. There is way more to this story than anyone actually knows or wants to know!
    This building needs to be replaced.
    It is not doing anyone any good.

    If allowed, i will say more.. Waiting on approval to comment…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search