Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree. A bigger pool where the tennis courts are currently seems to make a whole lot of sense.

In option 3 the soccer field is dramatically reduced.

There's some slight of hand going on with the soccer field. As noted above, the lines were shrunk to conceal how small it is, in all options it is considerably smaller than currently, and not really a usable shape for soccer. The field is the same size in option 1 and option 3. They could have kept it the same size as it is currently in option 1, but instead they added a row of trees. I assume that was done so they could say that taking away a tennis court doesn't result in a bigger field. Option 2 shrinks it even further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's some slight of hand going on with the soccer field. As noted above, the lines were shrunk to conceal how small it is, in all options it is considerably smaller than currently, and not really a usable shape for soccer. The field is the same size in option 1 and option 3. They could have kept it the same size as it is currently in option 1, but instead they added a row of trees. I assume that was done so they could say that taking away a tennis court doesn't result in a bigger field. Option 2 shrinks it even further.

It appears that is a lot of slight of hand going on: with the soccer field, with the pool, with the trees. The site is just not big enough, and the right of way only allows access to the park off of Idaho, and adds land area to the project size in order to allow more of the park to be built out while complying with zoning. The soccer field as configured is much, much, much smaller. The pool does not show all of the vehicle access, pumping facilities, etc. and even as shown is much, much smaller than the current smallest pool in DC which is the Georgetown pool on Volta. Moving forward with any of these options is irresponsible from a planning, environmental and fiscal standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recreation Center cannot really be upgraded much more than it is because of historic preservation. The upper field is virtually brand new - doesn't make sense to alter it at this time.

If DPR is looking at a complete restructuring of Hearst Park (which is basically the consequence of building a pool), of course the itty bitty turf field should be considered in that context. Its cost is relatively minor compared to the $12M plus that DPR is contemplating spending. And, let's face it, the DC government is no virgin when it comes to spending money only to have it fall to something bigger. DDOT is putting in new granite curbs and sidewalks at Conn & Newark in Cleveland Park right now, which basically will be torn out within a few months when the old library comes down, the site is excavated and the new one is built. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's some slight of hand going on with the soccer field. As noted above, the lines were shrunk to conceal how small it is, in all options it is considerably smaller than currently, and not really a usable shape for soccer. The field is the same size in option 1 and option 3. They could have kept it the same size as it is currently in option 1, but instead they added a row of trees. I assume that was done so they could say that taking away a tennis court doesn't result in a bigger field. Option 2 shrinks it even further.

It appears that is a lot of slight of hand going on: with the soccer field, with the pool, with the trees. The site is just not big enough, and the right of way only allows access to the park off of Idaho, and adds land area to the project size in order to allow more of the park to be built out while complying with zoning. The soccer field as configured is much, much, much smaller. The pool does not show all of the vehicle access, pumping facilities, etc. and even as shown is much, much smaller than the current smallest pool in DC which is the Georgetown pool on Volta. Moving forward with any of these options is irresponsible from a planning, environmental and fiscal standpoint.

It almost seems like DPR is just going through the motions on a pool. Councilmember Cheh decreed that there shall be a Ward 3 pool, and lo, that it be at Hearst. DPR staff made it pretty clear that Hearst was not their decision. So now the choice is to build the smallest public pool in DC and check it off the 'to do' list, even though the size seems like a waste of a lot of money, or at some point to concede the obvious and quietly drop the pool at this site.

[Anonymous]

The community needs to decide what it considers more important: tall trees and a full sized field or a pool. Make a decision and move on.

[Anonymous]

It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

It's still the same choice: field and shade vs pool and diminution in field and tree canopy?

Pearl clutchers vs young moms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

I was persuaded by the report of how much the immediate residents do to maintain Hearst Park. Clearly their views should count, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

I was persuaded by the report of how much the immediate residents do to maintain Hearst Park. Clearly their views should count, too.

Their views will be noted. As will the views of the other 77,000 residents of Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

I am not an immediate neighbor, but think $12M for a glorified kiddie pool is wasteful, both of money and the existing parkland. Keep Hearst green!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

I was persuaded by the report of how much the immediate residents do to maintain Hearst Park. Clearly their views should count, too.

You mean the stuff they started to do in the last few weeks when the realized "others" were encroaching on "their" park?

Don't buy that kool aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not up to the community as defined by immediate residents.

I was persuaded by the report of how much the immediate residents do to maintain Hearst Park. Clearly their views should count, too.

Their views will be noted. As will the views of the other 77,000 residents of Ward 3.

This Friends group at Hearst... is it a 501c3? When was it formed? I know other parks in DC have Friends groups that are very active in upkeep and raising funds for the park. Does Hearst have the same kind of friends?

[Anonymous]

What about the PP point that the pool, pool house, etc. can't be built under the trees' drip line? Does this shrink further the available siting for the pool and infrastructure? Unless, of course, the trees have come down -- maybe if they're damaged during excavation, heh, heh.

[Anonymous]

Reading through this what an obnoxious group of people. You want the city to build you a private pool for $12 million? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading through this what an obnoxious group of people. You want the city to build you a private pool for $12 million? Really?

Really.