115 North McDonough Street

On June 1, 2012 the Georgia state historic preservation office announced that the Downtown Decatur Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. No one told the owners of 115 North McDonough Street that their contributing property would no longer contribute to the historic district after this project is completed. And then there’s the impact to the new historic district’s integrity. The incompatible front addition breaks the historical setback line found in the remaining contributing properties and it diminishes the district’s feeling and setting.

115 North McDonough Street. Credit: 2009 Decatur Historic Resources survey.

115 N. McDonough Street. June 2, 2012.

115 North McDonough Street. June 15, 2012.

115 North McDonough Street. June 15, 2012.

115 North McDonough. June 19, 2012. Via Instagram.

115 N. McDonough under construction. August 2, 2012.

115 N. McDonough under construction as seen from the intersection of N. McDonough and Trinity. August 2, 2012.

115 N. McDonough Street. September 8, 2012.

Rendering of completed project at 115 N. McDonough Street. Credit: Lightroom, Inc.

Read more about the changes to this building. And by the way, did I mention that the owner and designer is an architect who specializes in historic preservation? Nuts, right?

115 N. McDonough Street, 2009 Decatur Historic Resource Survey inventory form.

In 2015, the Georgia chapter of the American Institute of Architects gave this project an “Honor Award.”

Credit: July/August 2015 Decatur Focus, p. 9

Credit: July/August 2015 Decatur Focus, p. 9


7 responses to “115 North McDonough Street

  1. How/why was building permission granted??

  2. I think if you look at the bigger picture there are buildings less than one block away on McDonough that also do not follow that set-back rule (Village Vets and that auto-shop, for example). Additionally, this part of McDonough (North of the tracks) is not a residential zone. I think it is a nice addition to the corridor. You should really contact the architect (and owner of the property) to express your opinions; he’s a really great guy that would be more than willing to discuss your concerns.

  3. One more thing: I think the Chick-Fil-A is offensive. That building had a prime opportunity to occupy the corner and keep with the street-scape north of the Chick-Fil-A (no set-backs). This section of McDonough (from the square to the train tracks) is a transition zone between residential and commercial, so it’s tough to say what is appropriate— the historic set-back homes or the traditional commercial buildings around the square. I think both are fair game.

  4. This is the same architect that completed the, highly praised, Village Vets project just a few lots down the street. Yes, in it’s current state it is an offensive plywood box addition to a a row of historically set-back houses. However, wait until the project is complete to pass judgement. You may end up enjoying the results. If nothing else, it will have a great view from the rooftop deck.

  5. Still looks like total crap. If I was an adjacent property owner, I’d be p!ssed.

  6. It’s offensive and irresponsible. Village Vets is beautiful, inside and out. What happened? Is he planning on doing the rest of the block? If so, then maybe it’ll all work together. On its own it is a blight on the name of architecture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s