Wright House in Phoenix Is Sold After Fight for Preservation

The deal closed after at least one offer to buy the property had fallen through. Its former owners, Steve Sells and John Hoffman, principals at 8081 Meridian, a local development company, bought the property for $1.8 million in June and several times raised the price as the controversy over the potential demolition intensified.

The buyer’s identity has not been revealed; he requested anonymity as part of the transaction. He paid $2.387 million for the house, which Wright built in 1952 for his son and daughter-in-law, David and Gladys, according to Robert Joffe of Russ Lyon Sotheby’s International Realty, who represented the sellers in the transaction.

Its latest asking price was $2.51 million. The owners said they had raised the price to offset the mounting costs of fighting attempts to have the house declared a landmark, which, in Arizona, would delay any demolition for three years.

A victory for preservationists around the country, the sale came about through the intercession of the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy, a group that works to preserve the architect’s legacy. The sale unfolded in virtual secret; few people beyond the sellers, their agent, the buyer and officials at the conservancy were aware of its details.

The fight to save the house had galvanized preservationists and stirred spirited debates among City Council members over the value of preserving historically relevant structures versus the need to safeguard homeowners’ property rights.

The conservancy and other organizations petitioned the city in June to consider giving the house landmark status, after they learned of the former owners’ plans to split the lot to build the new homes. Three local government bodies approved the landmark designation, but the Council, which has the final say, postponed its vote twice, in part to give the parties more time to strike some type of compromise. There was also uncertainty over how some of its members would vote, given the homeowners’ lack of consent for the landmark process.

“If ever there was a case to balance private property rights versus the public good, to save something historically important to the cultural legacy of the city, this was it,” Larry Woodin, the president of the conservancy, said in an interview.

The latest agreement materialized over the span of two weeks, part of an effort by the conservancy to find a buyer or group of buyers for the property — and after the sellers had rejected prior offers.

Mayor Greg Stanton, who was among the most vocal proponents of landmark designation for the home, called the sale “an early Christmas present for the people of Phoenix and for the world.”

“This is a great piece of architecture, and we’re so proud and honored that it will be preserved for generations to come,” he added.

The house sits in the Arcadia neighborhood, in a lot overlooking Phoenix’s picturesque Camelback Mountains, which can be seen from most of its rooms. Its coiled design is similar to the one Wright used for the Guggenheim Museum in New York. Though little known before this, it is regarded among experts as one of the most significant of Wright’s later works.

Four years ago, Wright’s granddaughters sold the house for $2.8 million to a buyer they thought would keep it and preserve it. In June, though, the house was sold again to 8081 Meridian. An appraisal ordered by the city estimated the home needed about $300,000 worth of restoration work.

A petition started by the conservancy gathered more than 28,000 signatures from supporters around the world, calling for the house to be saved.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Joffe said it was “the most fulfilling deal of my 28 years in real estate” because of the significance of the house.

An Arizona-based nonprofit organization being established with help from the conservancy will maintain and operate the house and oversee its restoration. The new owner will also ask the City Council to grant landmark status, said the conservancy’s executive director, Janet Halstead.

The goal is to make the house available for educational purposes on a limited basis — ushering in what Mr. Woodin described as “a new chapter in the life of this important and unique Frank Lloyd Wright building.”

About one in five buildings designed by Wright have been lost to natural disasters, neglect or the pressures of development. Since its incorporation in 1989, the conservancy has helped rescue a number of them.

Included are the Burton J. Westcott House in Springfield, Ohio, which Wright designed in 1906; the Goestsch-Winckler House, built in 1940 as part of an uncompleted cooperative community in Okemos, Mich.; and the Ennis House in Los Angeles, which Wright designed in 1923 and which was extensively damaged during the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

View the original article here

White House Memo: President Obama Facing Critical Choice After Newtown Shooting

Should he invest his energy and the stature he won with his re-election last month in a fight he may believe in but is not sure he can actually win? And with his last election now behind him, is he willing or even able to shift the dynamics in Washington to make such fights winnable?

To his core supporters, this is a moment that will define what a second-term Obama presidency will look like — whether it will be closer to the soaring aspirations that set liberal hearts aflutter in 2008 or more like the back-room deal making that characterized the four years that followed. Advocates on the left have long lamented that Mr. Obama was too quick to compromise, even as those on the right see him as a champion of a radical agenda.

From his point of view, Mr. Obama has been pragmatic, making cleareyed if cold assessments about when the votes were there and when they were not. Mr. Obama does not accept the notion that he has not pursued goals that seemed hard to achieve, most notably the historic health care program he pushed through. The economic crisis invariably forced other priorities onto the shelf.

But with the election over, outside events have now presented Mr. Obama with a series of decisions. Vote counts might suggest that he is still a long way from passing significant legislation on climate change, immigration and gun control. But Hurricane Sandy, last month’s Latino turnout for Democrats and now the Newtown shootings have also given him openings to make new arguments.

The developments in his fiscal negotiations with Republicans, overshadowed momentarily by the gun control debate, underscore the same tension. After agreeing to renew Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy in his first term, Mr. Obama has stood firm against it on the eve of his second and forced Republicans to accept raising rates on high income. But he compromised this week by agreeing to exempt many of those he has deemed wealthy and faces a test on whether he will stick to that even as House Republicans readied an alternative proposal.

Although he has spoken out for gun control without putting muscle into it before, his emotional speech at a memorial service in Newtown on Sunday declaring that there was no longer any “excuse for inaction” suggested that this time may be different. The pressure is high from pundits who compared the speech to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and suggested that Newtown may be what Birmingham was to John F. Kennedy in inspiring civil rights action.

“This moment is so pain-filled and there is such a desire — I think you can feel it building — to move forward in a common-sense way that he sees the imperative,” said Melody Barnes, the president’s former domestic policy adviser. “I’ve looked at the pictures of his face, and I think he sees that there’s no other course than to move forward. The situation demands it.”

Yet the normally sure-footed White House has seemed uncertain how far the president intends to go. Aides who normally offer expansive explanations of Mr. Obama’s thinking have declined to return phone calls. On Monday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, generally stuck to repeating the president’s words from his speech to avoid boxing him in, and he tamped down expectations of instant action by using the phrase “in coming weeks” 16 times.

Then, later in the day, the White House confirmed that Mr. Obama had met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and three cabinet secretaries to discuss gun control and other responses to the tragedy, but declined to provide details. Even the simple question of whether the president put Mr. Biden in charge of developing a response went unanswered by a half-dozen White House aides questioned on Tuesday. (The president planned to announce Mr. Biden's assignment on Wednesday morning.)

The White House opened the window a little on Tuesday, hinting at the kinds of gun measures Mr. Obama would embrace. In the past, he has endorsed the reinstatement of an expired ban on assault weapons, but this time, Mr. Carney said the president would be “actively supportive” of a new legislative effort. The president will also support reversing the exemption from background checks for gun show purchases in certain circumstances and “potentially” limits on high-capacity ammunition clips of the sort used in Newtown, Mr. Carney said.

But Mr. Carney said the president hoped to forge a broader response, including looking at mental health, education and cultural issues.

These decisions are made on a scale of trade-offs that may be unique to the White House. President Bill Clinton made big pushes in his early days for priorities that did not have the votes, or that helped cost Democrats control of Congress in his first midterm election, including the assault weapon ban that later expired and left the party feeling burned for nearly two decades. Then Mr. Clinton adjusted and focused more on making incremental progress toward his goals.

President George W. Bush scorned what he considered Mr. Clinton’s “small ball” approach and prided himself on bold initiatives like cutting taxes, remaking education, expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs and combating AIDS in Africa. But by his second term, he pursued big goals like overhauling Social Security and immigration only to lose.

“There certainly can be a cost to it,” said Peter Wehner, an adviser to Mr. Bush who worked for Mitt Romney this year. “You can fight for something and lose and be a weakened figure. On the other hand, sometimes there’s honor in loss. You may lose but in the process you advance a cause in the eyes of history.”

Mr. Wehner and other conservatives consider the groundswell for gun control to be understandable but more a symbolic gesture than an effective response. But he said Mr. Obama had been smart about picking the terrain he fought on. “He has waited until the stars aligned before he acted,” he said.

In the end, the stars have not aligned before for Obama priorities like legislation on climate change and immigration. He took office amid the worst economic crisis in generations and pursued a historic health coverage expansion that had eluded his predecessors. By the time he pushed that through, enacted a stimulus package, toughened Wall Street regulations and lifted limits on gays in the military, he had lost the House and did not think the new Republican majority would agree to gun legislation.

“The president always had a personal commitment to the issue,” said Phil Schiliro, who was Mr. Obama’s first legislative affairs director. “But given the crisis he faced when he first took office, there’s only so much capacity in the system to move his agenda.”

View the original article here