Great Gatsby’-style estate in Dallas comes to market for first time in five decades
An icon comes to market: Available for the first time in more than 50 years, 7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard, in the desirable Dallas suburb of University Park, is being represented by Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000.
12,000 square feet of sumptuous luxuries, including ballroom, music room, elevator…
DALLAS /PRNewswire/ — An icon comes to market: Available for the first time in more than 50 years, 7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard, in the desirable Dallas suburb of University Park, is being represented by Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000. At a generous .88 acres and in peaceful Volk Estates — with its winding streets, large lots and neighbors that include business and philanthropy leaders — this masterwork property is the definition of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard in the tony Dallas suburb of University Park, represented by Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton of Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty for $14,600,000 (PRNewsfoto/Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty)
The home was built in 1939 in the English Eclectic style and has since been preserved and expanded by noted Dallas architects Wilson Fuqua and Wilson McClure. It offers nearly 12,000 square feet of luxurious appointments, including hand-poured terrazzo floors, intricate hardwood floors, art niches, fireplaces with antique mantels and custom ironwork.
Gracious spaces are everywhere in this timeless home. Just two? A welcoming foyer with a sweeping staircase and a sizeable great room/ballroom with a large wet bar. The all-white gourmet kitchen with white-marble countertops and white-marble wall panels opens to a family room with a fireplace. The home also offers a music room, office, safe room, playroom, elevator, utility room with pet suite, game room with snack bar and six bedrooms, each with a private bath.
The second-floor primary suite is expansive and features a sitting area, two baths, two large closets and a private balcony, while an apartment over the three-car garage is ideal for guests.
The luxurious living continues outdoors. The grounds are an elegant paradise, enjoyed from two verandas — one with an alfresco fireplace — and featuring majestic trees, azalea bushes, hydrangea bushes and two artful fountains. The classical square swimming pool with an integrated spa is set in the grassy rear lawn and edged in limestone from Lueders, Texas.
On par with the great estates of Newport, Rhode Island, and the English countryside, 7037 Turtle Creek Boulevard is a rare opportunity to live in one of Dallas’ most exclusive neighborhoods, in a private world of elegance and ease. It is represented by expert agents Jeanne Shelton and Doug Shelton for $14,600,000. More than 30 photos of it are available at briggsfreeman.com.
Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty is the leading luxury brokerage in North Texas. Founded in 1960, it specializes in the sale of luxury homes, high-rises, ranches, land and commercial properties and is part of the $204 billion Sotheby’s International Realty network of 25,000 agents in 1,000 offices in 80-plus countries and territories.
Advertisement
SOURCE Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty
This screenshot of an AI-generated video depicts Christopher Pelkey, who was killed in 2021.
Screenshot: Stacey Wales/YouTubeNir Eisikovits, UMass Boston and Daniel J. Feldman, UMass Boston
Christopher Pelkey was shot and killed in a road range incident in 2021. On May 8, 2025, at the sentencing hearing for his killer, an AI video reconstruction of Pelkey delivered a victim impact statement. The trial judge reported being deeply moved by this performance and issued the maximum sentence for manslaughter.
As part of the ceremonies to mark Israel’s 77th year of independence on April 30, 2025, officials had planned to host a concert featuring four iconic Israeli singers. All four had died years earlier. The plan was to conjure them using AI-generated sound and video. The dead performers were supposed to sing alongside Yardena Arazi, a famous and still very much alive artist. In the end Arazi pulled out, citing the political atmosphere, and the event didn’t happen.
In April, the BBC created a deep-fake version of the famous mystery writer Agatha Christie to teach a “maestro course on writing.” Fake Agatha would instruct aspiring murder mystery authors and “inspire” their “writing journey.”
The use of artificial intelligence to “reanimate” the dead for a variety of purposes is quickly gaining traction. Over the past few years, we’ve been studying the moral implications of AI at the Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and we find these AI reanimations to be morally problematic.
Before we address the moral challenges the technology raises, it’s important to distinguish AI reanimations, or deepfakes, from so-called griefbots. Griefbots are chatbots trained on large swaths of data the dead leave behind – social media posts, texts, emails, videos. These chatbots mimic how the departed used to communicate and are meant to make life easier for surviving relations. The deepfakes we are discussing here have other aims; they are meant to promote legal, political and educational causes.
Chris Pelkey was shot and killed in 2021. This AI ‘reanimation’ of him was presented in court as a victim impact statement.
Moral quandaries
The first moral quandary the technology raises has to do with consent: Would the deceased have agreed to do what their likeness is doing? Would the dead Israeli singers have wanted to sing at an Independence ceremony organized by the nation’s current government? Would Pelkey, the road-rage victim, be comfortable with the script his family wrote for his avatar to recite? What would Christie think about her AI double teaching that class?
The answers to these questions can only be deduced circumstantially – from examining the kinds of things the dead did and the views they expressed when alive. And one could ask if the answers even matter. If those in charge of the estates agree to the reanimations, isn’t the question settled? After all, such trustees are the legal representatives of the departed.
But putting aside the question of consent, a more fundamental question remains.
What do these reanimations do to the legacy and reputation of the dead? Doesn’t their reputation depend, to some extent, on the scarcity of appearance, on the fact that the dead can’t show up anymore? Dying can have a salutary effect on the reputation of prominent people; it was good for John F. Kennedy, and it was good for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The fifth-century B.C. Athenian leader Pericles understood this well. In his famous Funeral Oration, delivered at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, he asserts that a noble death can elevate one’s reputation and wash away their petty misdeeds. That is because the dead are beyond reach and their mystique grows postmortem. “Even extreme virtue will scarcely win you a reputation equal to” that of the dead, he insists.
Do AI reanimations devalue the currency of the dead by forcing them to keep popping up? Do they cheapen and destabilize their reputation by having them comment on events that happened long after their demise?
In addition, these AI representations can be a powerful tool to influence audiences for political or legal purposes. Bringing back a popular dead singer to legitimize a political event and reanimating a dead victim to offer testimony are acts intended to sway an audience’s judgment.
It’s one thing to channel a Churchill or a Roosevelt during a political speech by quoting them or even trying to sound like them. It’s another thing to have “them” speak alongside you. The potential of harnessing nostalgia is supercharged by this technology. Imagine, for example, what the Soviets, who literally worshipped Lenin’s dead body, would have done with a deep fake of their old icon.
Good intentions
You could argue that because these reanimations are uniquely engaging, they can be used for virtuous purposes. Consider a reanimated Martin Luther King Jr., speaking to our currently polarized and divided nation, urging moderation and unity. Wouldn’t that be grand? Or what about a reanimated Mordechai Anielewicz, the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, speaking at the trial of a Holocaust denier like David Irving?
But do we know what MLK would have thought about our current political divisions? Do we know what Anielewicz would have thought about restrictions on pernicious speech? Does bravely campaigning for civil rights mean we should call upon the digital ghost of King to comment on the impact of populism? Does fearlessly fighting the Nazis mean we should dredge up the AI shadow of an old hero to comment on free speech in the digital age?
No one can know with certainty what Martin Luther King Jr. would say about today’s society.AP Photo/Chick Harrity
Even if the political projects these AI avatars served were consistent with the deceased’s views, the problem of manipulation – of using the psychological power of deepfakes to appeal to emotions – remains.
But what about enlisting AI Agatha Christie to teach a writing class? Deep fakes may indeed have salutary uses in educational settings. The likeness of Christie could make students more enthusiastic about writing. Fake Aristotle could improve the chances that students engage with his austere Nicomachean Ethics. AI Einstein could help those who want to study physics get their heads around general relativity.
But producing these fakes comes with a great deal of responsibility. After all, given how engaging they can be, it’s possible that the interactions with these representations will be all that students pay attention to, rather than serving as a gateway to exploring the subject further.
Living on in the living
In a poem written in memory of W.B. Yeats, W.H. Auden tells us that, after the poet’s death, Yeats “became his admirers.” His memory was now “scattered among a hundred cities,” and his work subject to endless interpretation: “the words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.”
The dead live on in the many ways we reinterpret their words and works. Auden did that to Yeats, and we’re doing it to Auden right here. That’s how people stay in touch with those who are gone. In the end, we believe that using technological prowess to concretely bring them back disrespects them and, perhaps more importantly, is an act of disrespect to ourselves – to our capacity to abstract, think and imagine.
Nir Eisikovits, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston and Daniel J. Feldman, Senior Research Fellow, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Arizona Monsoon 2025 Forecast: Above-Normal Rainfall Expected Across the State
The Climate Prediction Center’s 2025 outlook predicts above-normal rainfall for Arizona’s monsoon season, with higher temperatures expected statewide. Learn what this means for Phoenix and how to prepare.
Arizona residents can anticipate a wetter-than-average monsoon season in 2025, according to the latest outlook from the Climate Prediction Center. The forecast indicates a 33% to 50% chance of above-normal precipitation across most of the state, with the highest probabilities in east-central Arizona.
What’s Driving the Forecast?
Several factors contribute to the optimistic precipitation outlook:
Soil Moisture Conditions: Unusually dry soil across the Southwest can enhance monsoon activity. Dry soils heat up more quickly, potentially strengthening the thermal low that draws moisture into the region. ENSO-Neutral Conditions: The Climate Prediction Center notes a 74% chance of ENSO-neutral conditions persisting through the Northern Hemisphere summer. Such conditions often lead to more typical monsoon patterns, without the suppressing effects associated with El Niño.
What to Expect in Phoenix
For Phoenix, the outlook suggests a 39% chance of above-normal precipitation, a 33% chance of near-normal precipitation, and a 28% chance of below-normal precipitation during the July-September monsoon period. While the probabilities don’t guarantee a wetter season, the highest likelihood leans toward increased rainfall.
Preparing for Monsoon Season
Advertisement
With the potential for increased rainfall, it’s essential to prepare for the associated hazards:
Flash Flooding: Heavy downpours can lead to sudden flash floods, especially in urban areas and dry washes. Dust Storms (Haboobs): Strong winds ahead of thunderstorms can create massive dust storms, reducing visibility and air quality. Lightning and Downburst Winds: Severe thunderstorms can produce dangerous lightning and sudden, strong wind gusts.
Safety Tips
Stay Informed: Monitor weather forecasts and alerts from trusted sources like the National Weather Service. Avoid Flooded Areas: Never drive through flooded roadways; turn around, don’t drown. Secure Outdoor Items: High winds can turn unsecured objects into projectiles. Prepare an Emergency Kit: Include essentials like water, non-perishable food, flashlight, batteries, and first aid supplies.
For a detailed overview of the 2025 Arizona Monsoon Outlook, you can watch the following video:
A public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians
Concessions to the private sector are one reason why health care is so costly.
FS Productions/Tetra images via Getty ImagesZachary W. Schulz, Auburn University
A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn’t afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I’ve come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way.
People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult.
I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today.
By tracing the roots of today’s system and all its problems, it’s easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different.
Decades of compromise
My research and that of many others show that today’s high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good.
Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being.
Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job.
In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality.
A brief history of Medicaid expansion.
Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time.
Bloated bureaucracies, ‘creeping socialism’
Today, that legacy is painfully visible.
States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace.
The system’s architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid’s scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike.
Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like “rugged individualism” and “freedom of choice” have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach.
Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as “socialized medicine” or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare.
The health care system’s administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn’t accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries.
President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts would reduce Medicaid spending by about US$700 billion.
Coverage gaps, chronic disinvestment
Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system’s underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system.
The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats.
When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce.
These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state’s refusal to expand Medicaid.
In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives.
All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed.
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect.
A system by design
Change is hard not because reformers haven’t tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability.
This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers.
Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people’s options really are.
Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency.
Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change.
Zachary W. Schulz, Senior Lecturer of History, Auburn University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy