Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Ward 3 residents would be very happy to get a pool. Yes, Wilson has a pool but it is an INDOOR pool. Having an outdoor pool nearby would be fantastic for everyone. DC is HOT in the summer!

+1,000

+1

[Anonymous]

But is a pool for 3 months worth losing the tennis courts and fields that our kids depend on year round?

Everyone seems to think they can have their cake and eat it too. There is physically no space for a large pool, changing facilities, facilities for pool equipment, tennis courts, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. And the fact that Cheh and DPR and DGS say it's going to happen despite there being no architectural plan is outrageous. Sure, they say it all coded like "there's no final decision, hint hint, wink wink." Absolute waste of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But is a pool for 3 months worth losing the tennis courts and fields that our kids depend on year round?

Everyone seems to think they can have their cake and eat it too. There is physically no space for a large pool, changing facilities, facilities for pool equipment, tennis courts, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. And the fact that Cheh and DPR and DGS say it's going to happen despite there being no architectural plan is outrageous. Sure, they say it all coded like "there's no final decision, hint hint, wink wink." Absolute waste of money.

There is definitely space for a pool. The current layout is inefficient with a lot of unusable space lost to slopes on all sides. With proper re-grading and the use of retaining walls you could probably add another 20% of usable space to accommodate all users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But is a pool for 3 months worth losing the tennis courts and fields that our kids depend on year round?

Everyone seems to think they can have their cake and eat it too. There is physically no space for a large pool, changing facilities, facilities for pool equipment, tennis courts, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. And the fact that Cheh and DPR and DGS say it's going to happen despite there being no architectural plan is outrageous. Sure, they say it all coded like "there's no final decision, hint hint, wink wink." Absolute waste of money.

There is definitely space for a pool. The current layout is inefficient with a lot of unusable space lost to slopes on all sides. With proper re-grading and the use of retaining walls you could probably add another 20% of usable space to accommodate all users.

Perhaps, but only if you have 15' to 20' concrete retaining walls along Idaho Ave. and 37th Sts, which doesn't sound very green, particularly if all of the mature tree canopy is taken down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But is a pool for 3 months worth losing the tennis courts and fields that our kids depend on year round?

Everyone seems to think they can have their cake and eat it too. There is physically no space for a large pool, changing facilities, facilities for pool equipment, tennis courts, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. And the fact that Cheh and DPR and DGS say it's going to happen despite there being no architectural plan is outrageous. Sure, they say it all coded like "there's no final decision, hint hint, wink wink." Absolute waste of money.

Another case of "Mary Cheh knows what is best for you." Just like how she personally chose the site of the new homeless shelter on Idaho Ave., with no analyses, hearings or consideration of resources and impacts.

[Anonymous]

The best place for the pool, if there is one, is up next to the school on the site of the temporary class room building. It has to come down anyway, and swimmers can use the Hearst parking lot outside of school hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best place for the pool, if there is one, is up next to the school on the site of the temporary class room building. It has to come down anyway, and swimmers can use the Hearst parking lot outside of school hours.

I'm not at Hearst, but if it were my elementary school, I'd be a little worried about having a pool that close to the school and playground. Down the hill and around the corner out of sight would be less tempting -- out of sight, out of mind.

[Anonymous]

The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

Instead of tennis courts?

DPR has been clear that the cottage is not part of the renovation. Maybe they could take the mone from the pool and instead use it for the cottage. Also, where did the 60 number come from? DPR's official number was half of that.

[Anonymous]

Put the tennis courts on top of the changing room and mechanical room building. That will leave plenty of room for the precious oaks. Done!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

The rec center is not part of this plan. 60 is a small number of kids, if it is even that many, when you consider the number of local families who would use the pool. This should not be made into an issue about the rec center.

I am a neighbor and in favor of the pool!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best place for the pool, if there is one, is up next to the school on the site of the temporary class room building. It has to come down anyway, and swimmers can use the Hearst parking lot outside of school hours.

I'm not at Hearst, but if it were my elementary school, I'd be a little worried about having a pool that close to the school and playground. Down the hill and around the corner out of sight would be less tempting -- out of sight, out of mind.

The surrounding community feels the same way. They don't want to lose a scarce playing field or the tennis courts. Mary Cheh should look elsewhere. If the pool is located at this site, Hearst school for sure will have to share its parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The pool should go in the corner over by the tennis courts. They need to renovate/expand/modernize the Hearst Rec facility! That cottage is historic but it is too small and hazardous, cramped bathrooms & too small inside in winter for the 60 kids that use it for aftercare during the school year. They need to put the safety of the kids FIRST. The Rec kids go to Hearst but were not allowed to use the gym to exercise in winter because DCPS/Rec can't manage to cooperate in a timely manner.

The rec center is not part of this plan. 60 is a small number of kids, if it is even that many, when you consider the number of local families who would use the pool. This should not be made into an issue about the rec center.

I am a neighbor and in favor of the pool!

If it's a choice between a pool and the tennis courts, the neighborhood would want to retain the tennis courts. Perhaps a better spot for the pool would be next to the Deal parking lot, which is more centrally located and transit accessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put the tennis courts on top of the changing room and mechanical room building. That will leave plenty of room for the precious oaks. Done!

Don't be snarky. With everyone worried about climate change and keeping the green tree canopy to cut energy usage in the city, tearing down some mature growth trees for a swimming pool used for just 90 days per year seems rather carbon-wasteful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

It is great that Hearst is getting an amphitheater. That will be great fun for the students. Who knew that DCPS has those as an option. That sure does highlight a vast range of amenities offered to schools. (And there is a bit of frustration in that comment. Happy for the students, but I wish the timetable for renovation of my ugly EOTP neighborhood school building from the 1970s doesn't keep getting pushed back. Whenever they do get around to renovating, we will have to push for an amphitheater on the vast space of land and see if that amenity can fit in the budget).

An amphitheater sounds fine, but it's not going to be built over maintaining tennis courts at the site. And when will Dysfunctional City Public Schools finally remove the portable classroom building, anyway?