A Tale of Two Historic Garland Houses: Our city's four options for resolving the Tinsley-Lyles House crisis

(Third and final in a three-part series) 

Bright and cheery, the Pace House's central hallway with its original light fixtures and transoms never fails to charm visitors.

Dark and dreary, the interior of the Tinsley-Lyles House awaits its future after an unnecessary 3-year delay due to city politics.

The City of Garland squandered a sparkling opportunity that well could have raised—totally from private funds—enough money to restore the historic Tinsley-Lyles House without requiring one additional penny from the taxpayers' pockets. It was a unique window of time that sadly has passed.

In light of that mess-up, what are the remaining options now for the city? Garland has four possibilities (with a few subsets) for what to do with the Tinsley-Lyles House.

1. It can simply tear it down, toss the remains in the landfill, and move on—perhaps finding some kind of adaptive reuse for the new, large, expensive foundation on which the house now sits. Throwing the city's history in the trash can (the Tinsley-Lyles is one of Garland's oldest remaining structures) would be a terrible waste of our city's resources.

2. Find a taker for the house, who then could move it to a vacant lot and restore it for private use. More than 500 people came forward after This Old House magazine, a Long Island-based national publication with a circulation exceeding 1 million, ran a story in its "Save This Old House" feature on both the Pace and Tinsley-Lyles Houses. Eventually only three actually submitted valid applications for the Pace House, with the only logical option for the city being the proposal that my wife and I made to move it to a vacant lot we already owned in Garland's Travis College Hill Historic District. We know firsthand the financial pain and physical toll that caused us. We own no more vacant residential lots that could be used to accommodate the Tinsley-Lyles. I know of one Garland citizen who at the time (three years ago) was an ideal fit for the Tinsley-Lyles project, had it gone into private hands then, but his interest has moved on to other commitments, as well.

The welcoming Pace House back porch is the setting for refreshments when guests pour through during the annual historic home tours on Garland's 11th Street.

3. Design a firm plan for the ultimate use of the house, then the city appropriate whatever funds are needed for that restoration, refurbishment, or adaptive reuse. Keep in mind that government-owned projects are always notoriously more expensive than privately-owned projects. Having worked with numerous preservationists, I doubt the house can be remodeled or restored by the city in its present nonresidential location for less than an additional $250,000 to $300,000 or more (after already having spent $316,028.18 on that project). Annual upkeep would have to be figured out, too. That could run anywhere from $40,000 to $75,000 a year for starters. And over the years the costs will go up.

If the city keeps the house, the first question really remains, how should the house be used? Unfortunately our city politicians have tap-danced on this question all along. Since city leaders have been so reluctant to be transparent about whether they have privately made any secret commitments, their dancing makes me wonder what surreptitious agreements truly had been reached with Preservation Garland Inc., which so far has not been successful in raising the funds necessary to restore or even sustain the house and has helped bring on the current crisis with the historic home.

Some have suggested the structure become a genealogical library. The Garland library board has made it clear that it does not favor this. Others have suggested it as an office for the Garland Convention and Visitors Bureau. Its location away from the main flow of traffic seems to diminish that idea. 

Preservation Garland Inc., has repeatedly talked about making the Tinsley-Lyles into a house museum of early Garland life. The crucial report by the "Summerlee Commission on Financial Sustainability of History Organizations" released in mid-2015 presented strong evidence that house museums not tied to major national, state, or local events or personalities all across the country are in deep financial trouble. The report says the only hope for saving these house museums is for local, state, and national governments to step in and provide the necessary funding. The report also recognizes the unlikelihood of this happening, because of so many pressing infrastructure issues facing governments at all levels. The report recommends finding some way to downsize the number of these house museums. 

I personally know the author of that Summerlee report—Texas preservationist and Baylor University professor Gary Smith. In conversations Gary told me that what Kay and I did in taking the historic Pace House really should be the model for dissolving hundreds of house museums all across the country. 

Tinsley-Lyles House in original condition about the time it became the property of the city in 1979.

4. Sell or lease it to some business or retail entity that can pay to have it restored and convert it into a retail or office space operating from its present location. On the site where it is now, the building might make a nice restaurant, clothing store, or other retail establishment—or maybe even a law office or architect's office. It could give downtown Garland some additional sound retail that it sorely needs. Unfortunately, no federal and state historic tax credits would be available for restoring this project. The Tinsley-Lyles is not part of a National Register Historic District. Even if it were to ever become part of such a district, too many serious mistakes, such as location and foundation, may already have been made for it to be a "Contributing" building.

After fighting so diligently to save this historic structure in 2013-2014, I personally am weary of all the political infighting, arguing, controversy, backbiting, and inertia surrounding the Tinsley-Lyles House. A decision needs to be made about its future—and that decision needs to be made soon and be permanent!

Because of its historic value, tearing it down isn't the right option.

Leaving it standing as is to keep deteriorating ("demolition by neglect" is the term for this practice) isn't the correct choice either.

Giving it to someone with the funds, energy, determination, and an appropriate residential lot to move it and restore it and use it might be a possibility. But remember: many are willing, but few actually respond. Most of those indications of interest or outright offers for the Pace House and the Tinsley-Lyles House originated from outside the City of Garland. Is giving it to another city what Garland really wants to do?

Using it as a living museum—once a popular idea and once my top preferred choice—now has been proved to be not wise because so many of these house museums have become albatrosses around the necks of communities all across the country due to rising maintenance costs. This solution is possible, but only if the city or a group of citizens with a bona fide track record steps up with an ironclad commitment to pay for it over the next 40 to 50 years.

Since squandering their golden opportunity in 2015 following the grand success of the saving and celebration of the Pace House, the city and Preservation Garland Inc., must now look for new ways to solve the problem they created—without shoving the expense on to the backs of the already overloaded Garland taxpayers.

The public should not be forced to pay one added nickel for these mistakes.

Since during the past three years the city has already invested nearly a third of a million dollars in this historic home with so little to show for it, and since the paltry $75,000 currently proposed for renovating it will barely start the adaptive-reuse process that is necessary, I'm leaning toward the city’s pulling the $75,000 out of the budget now. Since $75,000 is not enough, further requests likely will follow—thus reigniting this hurtful fight again and again. The more incensed people get, the more "Tear it down!" is likely to become the battle cry. 

The city must make it crystal-clear to Preservation Garland that the house belongs to the city, not it, and then start an intensive search for a quality business willing to lease the structure from the city—even at $1 a year for the first five or 10 years in exchange for rehabilitating it—and turn it into a classy restaurant or other appealing and needed place of business in the downtown area.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, of which Kay and I are participants and fans, promotes the idea of adaptive reuse as what preservation is really all about these days. Keeping the historic exterior framework but adapting the inside of the house to a new purpose like a privately-operated business venture seems like the most economical, sensible, and forward-moving way to go right now.

Think about it! And then call your city councilmember and tell him or her your decision.

Let's put a period at the end of this fruitless dialogue about the future of the Tinsley-Lyles House—an issue that handily could have been—and should have been—resolved three years ago!