Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you look at the footprint for even the small Volta pool, concrete deck and pool house, it would eliminate much more than just two tennis courts at Hearst. One of the websites has the footprints superimposed. And that's the footprint for basically the smallest DC pool around. DPR should find some empty property that is not already used for other recreational activities and put a pool there.

Because DPR has binders full of empty property just lying around in upper NW waiting to have a pool installed on it?

A big part of the problem is that DPR just does a lousy job managing its portfolio. It has sites like Hearst, Ft. Reno and Palisades that are heavily used, perhaps overused, then it has sites like Hardy and Forest hills that hardly get used at all. Rather than trying to balance the use, they keep trying to cram more and more into the sites that are already the heaviest used.

[Anonymous]

Ft Reno is NPS, so not an equivalent.

Forest Hills is very highly used, the park is jammed during the day and weekends with a much higher population density than the area around Hearst. I don't know where you get that observation from.

I can't speak to Palisades, but it isn't centrally located to have a pool. DPR apparently had already ruled it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ft Reno is NPS, so not an equivalent.

Forest Hills is very highly used, the park is jammed during the day and weekends with a much higher population density than the area around Hearst. I don't know where you get that observation from.

I can't speak to Palisades, but it isn't centrally located to have a pool. DPR apparently had already ruled it out.

Based on the FOIA results, it is my understanding that DPR ruled nothing out, there were no site studies conducted and apparently no environmental impact studies either. That to me is concerning.

Hearst Park is also federal land, so I don't think that's the barrier people are making it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ft Reno is NPS, so not an equivalent.

Forest Hills is very highly used, the park is jammed during the day and weekends with a much higher population density than the area around Hearst. I don't know where you get that observation from.

I can't speak to Palisades, but it isn't centrally located to have a pool. DPR apparently had already ruled it out.

Reno is administered by DPR. Palisades and Hearst are also NPS land administered by DPR.

The observation on Forest Hills comes from looking at DPR permits for the field. The field at Forest Hills is essentially never permitted. Hearst, Palisades and Reno are permitted nearly 100% of the time outside of school hours.

[Anonymous]

Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Very thoughtful post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Not to mention that the Lafayette location used to be in Ward 3, many residents in the Chevy Chase DC area continue to think of themselves as being in Ward 3 rather than Ward 4 (with Rock Creek as a more natural boundary) and, with the large increase in population in areas EOTP, Chevy Chase/Layfayette are likely to be back in Ward 3 after the next ward redistricting. Again, shows how silly artificial boundaries for locating major facilities like pools and parks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

The areas you mention have no DC owned space for a pool. Yes, there should be 2 pools west of the park (let's remove the ward argument to make it easier). So one at Lafayette and one at Hearst. Problem solved.

Lafayette is going through its public process next year, so this could happen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

The areas you mention have no DC owned space for a pool. Yes, there should be 2 pools west of the park (let's remove the ward argument to make it easier). So one at Lafayette and one at Hearst. Problem solved.

Lafayette is going through its public process next year, so this could happen!

You missed the part about the land around Hearst on the map being all gray -- i.e., not in need of an outdoor pool. A pool at Hearst doesn't address the need of the parts of the city that aren't currently within walking distance of a public pool, the area of the map in slate blue.

[Anonymous]

It's close enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Very thoughtful post.

And to add on, why did DPR feel the need to prepare a planning document? Because there was a mismatch between the facilities they have and the facilities they need. What caused the mismatch? Facilities were built where politicians thought they should go, rather than where they were actually needed.

But the plan is barely two years old, nothing has actually been built that follows it, and the first time they have the opportunity to use it in planning it goes out the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

The areas you mention have no DC owned space for a pool. Yes, there should be 2 pools west of the park (let's remove the ward argument to make it easier). So one at Lafayette and one at Hearst. Problem solved.

Lafayette is going through its public process next year, so this could happen!

Isn't that the fundamental issue with Hearst? The results of the FOIA search confirm, not only that there was no public process, there was no process at all. The siting decision was basically Cheh's diktat.

[Anonymous]

There's DC government land next to Deal, currently used for overflow parking, that could be a good site for a pool. It's centrally located, on transit and next to secondary schools, which is good for June use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's DC government land next to Deal, currently used for overflow parking, that could be a good site for a pool. It's centrally located, on transit and next to secondary schools, which is good for June use.

This.