Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trees have to be removed. The planners are already preparing an argument that they are sick and need to come down. Then there are people hear who say they are invasive species.

If the current budget for this pool is $12 million, it will dramatically increase once the hydrology is reviewed. If the city builds the pool and folks on Springland get worse flooding, the city is going to be on the hook for additional millions because Springland will be able to argue that changes to Hearst made the situation worse.

Thanks Mary Cheh for thinking this through.

Not to mention the locusts and pestilence that would soon follow arrival of the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still think that the best place for a Ward 3 pool is on the UDC campus. It's relatively centrally-located, on the Red Line and has lots of parking. And the campus is kind of a concrete sh#%house anyway, a developed 'brownfield' site in which a new pool would be an aesthetic enhancement.

UDC is not part of the executive branch of the DC government. They are congressionally chartered and overseen by an independent board of trustees. Any use of the site would have to approved by the board, it's hard to imagine they would approve a public pool because it's not part of their mission.

True. It's hard to see where a pool fits into a mission centered around cronyism and a barely-accredited community college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of the mature trees will be lost.

Again, hyperbole.

DPR doesn't control the UDC campus. They cannot just claim space to place a public pool. And proximity to the red line means nothing for this facility.

If public transportation doesn't matter, then pretty much everyone will drive? To a site with no off-street parking? Even Palisades and Jelleff have parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trees have to be removed. The planners are already preparing an argument that they are sick and need to come down. Then there are people hear who say they are invasive species.

If the current budget for this pool is $12 million, it will dramatically increase once the hydrology is reviewed. If the city builds the pool and folks on Springland get worse flooding, the city is going to be on the hook for additional millions because Springland will be able to argue that changes to Hearst made the situation worse.

Thanks Mary Cheh for thinking this through.

If the pool is built, it's likely that Hearst will look very different in 10 years, with most of the tall tree canopy gone and replaced by those little flowering trees that offer no shade and never grow to more than 15 in height. These are what DC has been planting on many streets that used to have mature trees.

[Anonymous]

Lots of concrete and minimal shade. Besides, who wants a swimming pool that is in the shade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trees have to be removed. The planners are already preparing an argument that they are sick and need to come down. Then there are people hear who say they are invasive species.

If the current budget for this pool is $12 million, it will dramatically increase once the hydrology is reviewed. If the city builds the pool and folks on Springland get worse flooding, the city is going to be on the hook for additional millions because Springland will be able to argue that changes to Hearst made the situation worse.

Thanks Mary Cheh for thinking this through.

A lot of "ifs" in this statement. The fact is that the water runoff is a significant issue on Springland Lane. The addition of a pool will not impact the mitigation that will need to be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If public transportation doesn't matter, then pretty much everyone will drive? To a site with no off-street parking? Even Palisades and Jelleff have parking.

Almost all of the users of the pool will be your neighbors - the people who will walk and bike to the pool. Other neighborhoods have pools. No one coming to this pool would be taking the metro.

I just went by 37th Street. Not. One. Car parked on it. The way it is except when Hearst is session or Stoddert is using the field, neither of which will be the case when the pool is in operation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trees have to be removed. The planners are already preparing an argument that they are sick and need to come down. Then there are people hear who say they are invasive species.

If the current budget for this pool is $12 million, it will dramatically increase once the hydrology is reviewed. If the city builds the pool and folks on Springland get worse flooding, the city is going to be on the hook for additional millions because Springland will be able to argue that changes to Hearst made the situation worse.

Thanks Mary Cheh for thinking this through.

If the pool is built, it's likely that Hearst will look very different in 10 years, with most of the tall tree canopy gone and replaced by those little flowering trees that offer no shade and never grow to more than 15 in height. These are what DC has been planting on many streets that used to have mature trees.

The street trees are intentionally shorter species to stay clear of the Pepco wires. Such is not the case on a park. Plus, DPR was very clear that they intent to ensure that the mature trees are protected. Again, hyperbole and worse-case conjecture on the part of the poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If public transportation doesn't matter, then pretty much everyone will drive? To a site with no off-street parking? Even Palisades and Jelleff have parking.

Almost all of the users of the pool will be your neighbors - the people who will walk and bike to the pool. Other neighborhoods have pools. No one coming to this pool would be taking the metro.

I just went by 37th Street. Not. One. Car parked on it. The way it is except when Hearst is session or Stoddert is using the field, neither of which will be the case when the pool is in operation.

But the consistent themes of this thread are (1) the pool is to serve all of Ward 3; and (2) to serve a DC-wide population, which will value a safe, clean park west of Rock Creek. So which is it? Walkers and bikers? Or a very-used asset for the ward and the city? If the latter, what are the conclusions of the parking and traffic studies as to parking demand? Has DPR started to scope this yet?

[Anonymous]

It will be a public pool which means any DC resident could use it. But why would anyone travel across town to go to a pool when there is likely a pool in close proximity to where they live? Even DPR said that most users tend to live within 2 miles of a pool. As such, this would be serving the areas like Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, Wakefield (aka North Cleveland Park) and fringes of AU Park and Chevy Chase.

Most people, especially kids, will walk or bike from those areas, not drive, not take the metro, not take the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be a public pool which means any DC resident could use it. But why would anyone travel across town to go to a pool when there is likely a pool in close proximity to where they live? Even DPR said that most users tend to live within 2 miles of a pool. As such, this would be serving the areas like Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, Wakefield (aka North Cleveland Park) and fringes of AU Park and Chevy Chase.

Most people, especially kids, will walk or bike from those areas, not drive, not take the metro, not take the bus.

Dream on. Most users will drive. And don't underestimate the appeal of a brand-new pool in a perceived safe area to some parents in more challenged parts of DC (or the perception that what Ward 3 gets is inherently "better"). I agree with you, it's a public pool open to all, and I'm fine with that. My point is that DPR needs to do a traffic and parking analysis and think this through. At a minimum, this should mean securing up front a commitment from DCPS to use the Hearst lot during pool hours (which mostly are not the same as school hours). While they are both DC government agencies, we all know about inter-agency bureaucratic roadblocks (no pun intended).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be a public pool which means any DC resident could use it. But why would anyone travel across town to go to a pool when there is likely a pool in close proximity to where they live? Even DPR said that most users tend to live within 2 miles of a pool. As such, this would be serving the areas like Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, Wakefield (aka North Cleveland Park) and fringes of AU Park and Chevy Chase.

Most people, especially kids, will walk or bike from those areas, not drive, not take the metro, not take the bus.

If this is mostly just a pool for Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, North CP (which already have access to a variety of private summer pools), what pool will serve the AU Park and Chevy Chase DC neighborhoods?? And what about the Palisades? They are all teeming with kids, and a pool that serves their "fringes" is inadequate. Shouldn't DC consider locations that would more conveniently serve these younger family neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

The pool definitely needs a traffic study. If it doesn't need traffic study, it probably doesn't justify demand for a $12 million investment. This pool cannot be built just for immediately adjacent homes - yes I realize the irony.

The only logical place for the pool is the tennis court. I don't support any other location. It's a decent compromise with those of us who love and currently use Hearst Park.

A tennis court located pool would also preserve an important field for soccer and other sports. It's hard to argue there isn't demand for open fields. Any of the three renditions of the pool either eliminates mature trees or dramatically reduces the size of the playable field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be a public pool which means any DC resident could use it. But why would anyone travel across town to go to a pool when there is likely a pool in close proximity to where they live? Even DPR said that most users tend to live within 2 miles of a pool. As such, this would be serving the areas like Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, Wakefield (aka North Cleveland Park) and fringes of AU Park and Chevy Chase.

Most people, especially kids, will walk or bike from those areas, not drive, not take the metro, not take the bus.

Dream on. Most users will drive. And don't underestimate the appeal of a brand-new pool in a perceived safe area to some parents in more challenged parts of DC (or the perception that what Ward 3 gets is inherently "better"). I agree with you, it's a public pool open to all, and I'm fine with that. My point is that DPR needs to do a traffic and parking analysis and think this through. At a minimum, this should mean securing up front a commitment from DCPS to use the Hearst lot during pool hours (which mostly are not the same as school hours). While they are both DC government agencies, we all know about inter-agency bureaucratic roadblocks (no pun intended).

oh I bet that DCPS will say that the new fancy gate on the Hearst ES parking lot will have to be closed at all times. Would love to see them ask DPR to pay for the re-paving and striping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pool definitely needs a traffic study. If it doesn't need traffic study, it probably doesn't justify demand for a $12 million investment. This pool cannot be built just for immediately adjacent homes - yes I realize the irony.

The only logical place for the pool is the tennis court. I don't support any other location. It's a decent compromise with those of us who love and currently use Hearst Park.

A tennis court located pool would also preserve an important field for soccer and other sports. It's hard to argue there isn't demand for open fields. Any of the three renditions of the pool either eliminates mature trees or dramatically reduces the size of the playable field.

f they put the pool where the tennis courts are, they could relocate the courts to where the basketball court is up the slope. If something's gotta' give, if there's one thing that DC has plenty of, it's basketball courts.