Hearst Playground story in Current
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
THANK YOU +1 |
Anonymous
+1,000,000 |
Anonymous
Between the homeless shelter and destruction of Hearst Park and the current cover up of who picked Hearst as a site for a pool, Cheh is at a net negative for Cleveland Park voters. |
Anonymous
Yes. And if the school truly wants to have an outdoor b-ball court, that could be fit in where the portable classroom structure used to be. |
Anonymous
Professor Cheh always know what is best for you. And who are we mere citizens to question her clearly superior intelligence and judgment? |
Anonymous
Didn't DPR staff make pretty clear at the public meeting at the park a couple of months ago that they were not the ones to pick the Hearst site for a pool? This is all on Cheh. It's clear that not much planning and analysis went into site selection and to just plain making sure that things would fit without very significant trade offs. Let's hope that the Professor knows more about law than she evidently knows about basic geometry. |
Anonymous
| Can't the previous 3 posters tell that the rest of Cheh's constituents want this? |
Anonymous
NP: Not me. |
Anonymous
| DPR has finally put the recent meeting presentation on its website, with three pool siting alternatives. My overall reaction is, for all this money and attention, DPR is proposing a very small pool, kind of a kiddie pool for adults. For comparison purposes, the pool footprint is smaller than one tennis court and smaller than one of the penalty areas of the soccer field. It's as if Cheh and DPR are going through the motions to say "Ward 3 pool. Check." There's a good question of whether it's worth the effort. The three alternatives each have drawbacks. #1 has the pool located directly alongside two tennis courts which doesn't seem optimal. #2 puts the pool closer to 37th St and the parking area but shrinks the filed by putting it on a N-S orientation. #3 puts the pool on the south side of the park but totally eliminates the shoulder/spectator area for the field. If the pool stays small, the better option might be to move it south of the small turf field, closer to the parking lot, thus leaving other areas of the park alone. None are great options. |
Anonymous
| Then let's advocate for a full size pool where the tennis courts are. Thanks for joining in! |
Anonymous
|
Here is the link so people can make their own judgement rather than take the word of someone who is opposed to a pool.
http://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project |
Anonymous
| It seems like if they can place the tennis courts where they are in option 3, then why not put a much bigger pool where the tennis courts are currently located. Then the space where the pool is in the option could become open green space. |
Anonymous
I agree. A bigger pool where the tennis courts are currently seems to make a whole lot of sense. |
Anonymous
| The tennis courts also preserve the field which satisfies my concerns about preserving the current natural park |
Anonymous
| I think there is a viable option 3a as described above. Is there a way of sharing that and pushing for it? |