Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a Ward 3 pool is truly needed, why not consider the vacant land directly across Fort Drive/parking lot from Alice Deal middle school and outside Ft Reno Park? It's car and Metro accessible, walking distance from existing schools and rec facilities (including the all-weather Wilson pool), more centrally located in Ward 3 and wouldn't sacrifice any school or park facilities like sports fields, tennis courts or playgrounds.

National Park Service owns/controls that space. Non-starter for a DC pool.

But see the posting above.

Whether or not it is part of Ft. Reno proper, it is Park Service land. The Murch Elementary School modernization process is a great example of how inflexible the Park Service is about use of these parcels, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There absolutely needs to be an outdoor pool in Ward 3, and the Hearst site is centrally located, easily accessible and walkable for thousands of families.

Put it in the corner by the blacktop of the tennis courts along with the changing area/bathrooms. This shouldn't be too hard and the few people who live right there ought not be able to trump the needs and wishes of the many.

Has a survey really shown these "wishes of the many?" I live in ward 3 but am perfectly happy using one of the very close pools in Ward 2: Volta and Jelleff. My kids and I take the bus to these all summer; they are both on the very same bus route as Hearst, just 2 miles or a 10-15 min bus ride away. I would prefer to keep Hearst for the many soccer teams and tennis players who have inadequate space as it is. In fact, I would love to see some basic maintenance done on both the soccer field, which is a dust pit, and the tennis courts. Have no faith at all that the city wouldn't destroy the field in creating the pool.

This. The whole "Ward 3 has no pool" logic makes no sense. It's not like there are border crossings we have to go through to change wards.

Why should every other neighborhood and ward in the city have multiple outdoor pool options while Ward 3 has non? We pay taxes too and should have the same convenient amenities as other residents city wide.

Ward 3 has multiple outdoor pool options -- they just require that you cross an invisible line known as a ward boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Ward 3 has multiple outdoor pool options -- they just require that you cross an invisible line known as a ward boundary.

So you support everyone in Ward 3 driving to other Wards or driving to Maryland, but not walking or biking to Hearst?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Ward 3 has multiple outdoor pool options -- they just require that you cross an invisible line known as a ward boundary.

So you support everyone in Ward 3 driving to other Wards or driving to Maryland, but not walking or biking to Hearst?

NP but I do. Most will continue to go to private pools anyway.

[Anonymous]

Then there shouldn't be much consternation over a public pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a Ward 3 pool is truly needed, why not consider the vacant land directly across Fort Drive/parking lot from Alice Deal middle school and outside Ft Reno Park? It's car and Metro accessible, walking distance from existing schools and rec facilities (including the all-weather Wilson pool), more centrally located in Ward 3 and wouldn't sacrifice any school or park facilities like sports fields, tennis courts or playgrounds.

National Park Service owns/controls that space. Non-starter for a DC pool.

But see the posting above.

Whether or not it is part of Ft. Reno proper, it is Park Service land. The Murch Elementary School modernization process is a great example of how inflexible the Park Service is about use of these parcels, unfortunately.

It's not that the Park Service is inflexible, it's just that DCPS lacks focus/competence to see it through. I can see the Park Service being resistant to using its land for a parking garage or a school building, but there is lots of precedent for using Department of Interior/NPS land for DC recreational/sports uses, ranging from RFK to Murch playground to UDC fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then there shouldn't be much consternation over a public pool at Hearst.

Consternation, no. But definitely strong concern about losing a large sports field, tennis courts and very mature trees to a pool and surrounding concrete decks. And puzzlement about where people will park on non-arterial streets zoned for RPP and school use during the week, unless Hearst E.S. makes its adjacent parking lot available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Ward 3 has multiple outdoor pool options -- they just require that you cross an invisible line known as a ward boundary.

So you support everyone in Ward 3 driving to other Wards or driving to Maryland, but not walking or biking to Hearst?

NP but I do. Most will continue to go to private pools anyway.

This is not true, many would use a public pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there shouldn't be much consternation over a public pool at Hearst.

Consternation, no. But definitely strong concern about losing a large sports field, tennis courts and very mature trees to a pool and surrounding concrete decks. And puzzlement about where people will park on non-arterial streets zoned for RPP and school use during the week, unless Hearst E.S. makes its adjacent parking lot available.

I don't live anywhere near Hearst, but I get it.

Ward 3 has some exceptions from the rest of the city because of its affluence- whether they be official or not. There's no PK3 because, frankly, these kids don't need the free preschool-- they attend private preschools by and large. The same can be said for the pools -- it hasn't had one until now because the demand isn't that great. Most people attend private pools. Now whether that is "fair" or not is up for debate, but it does seem like this plan is trying to shoe-horn in a benefit that isn't in demand nearly as much as the other ward pools. And, on top of that, to create the pool they will destroy a park that IS in demand in the area and is something already in demand.

[Anonymous]

Forest Hills Park is fairly central and walking distance to all those apartment buildings which lack pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

have you even seen the Cleveland park club pool? It is tiny. No room for laps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Ward 3 has multiple outdoor pool options -- they just require that you cross an invisible line known as a ward boundary.

So you support everyone in Ward 3 driving to other Wards or driving to Maryland, but not walking or biking to Hearst?

NP but I do. Most will continue to go to private pools anyway.

This is not true, many would use a public pool.

They might- but they'll keep their private pool membership where you can leave your stuff in the locker room with ease, have your kids participate on the swim team, and know it will be staffed properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

The former is a private club and the latter require residency. Not a solution for the rest of us.