Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

The shameless advocates for a Hearst pool seem to take everyone for a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

Right. And the soccer field is perhaps the most used asset in the park.

As a dog toilet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

Right. And the soccer field is perhaps the most used asset in the park.

As a dog toilet.

So pave it to save it?

Dog owner scofflaws should be ticketed and shamed, but that's no reason to chop up one of the few large soccer fields in NW Washington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

The shameless advocates for a Hearst pool seem to take everyone for a fool.

Yup. The 'it's just one tennis court' spin is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

The shameless advocates for a Hearst pool seem to take everyone for a fool.

Yup. The 'it's just one tennis court' spin is ridiculous.

I agree. A pool the size of a tennis court might as well be called a bath tub.

If you really believe that DC can contain everything a pool needs and a pool in the footprint of one tennis court, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except all of the proposals include soccer fields, tennis courts, playgrounds and the beautiful Oaks.

The loss of one tennis court is such a 1% problem, it is hard to think anyone in city hall cares about it.

All proposals include a greatly reduced soccer field.

The shameless advocates for a Hearst pool seem to take everyone for a fool.

Yup. The 'it's just one tennis court' spin is ridiculous.

I agree. A pool the size of a tennis court might as well be called a bath tub.

If you really believe that DC can contain everything a pool needs and a pool in the footprint of one tennis court, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Don't antagonize the 'pool shark.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an option that shows 2 tennis courts and a pool. Problem solved.

All of the options show the soccer field dramatically reduced in size.

Unfortunately, as the DPR team and the firm that DC contracted to plan the Hearst Park renovations have explained, the three proposed pool options for Hearst Park with a pool are basically just conceptual and are not dimensionally accurate or reflect all of a pool's ancillary facilities. As a post on the neighborhood list serve explains, none of those drawings accurately depicts the pool house and changing facilities, the concrete pool deck, nor the ADA pathways that will be required. The Department of General Services, which has overall responsibility for physical construction, also confirmed that there have not been any hydrology or feasibility studies done at the park to ensure that Hearst Park is actually a feasible location for a pool. This is important, not least because of the park's high water table.

It seems that the notion of pool at Hearst is basically Trumpian: don't worry about the details, it will be totally amazing and fantastic, believe me.

[Anonymous]

No, the "we don't want any nice things for our neighborhood" and "we don't want 'other' parking on our streets or using our parks" is Trumpian.

And the hydrology thing is totally bogus. If it were an issue, neither the Hearst school nor the Sidwell gym would have been feasible. And, if the issue is the field, then put the pool where the tennis courts are located, as proposed. See, no hyrdology issue there.

But keep hanging your chad on that issue, it is a nice deflection from the core 'stay our of our neighborhood" that is really the message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the "we don't want any nice things for our neighborhood" and "we don't want 'other' parking on our streets or using our parks" is Trumpian.

And the hydrology thing is totally bogus. If it were an issue, neither the Hearst school nor the Sidwell gym would have been feasible. And, if the issue is the field, then put the pool where the tennis courts are located, as proposed. See, no hyrdology [sic] issue there.

But keep hanging your chad on that issue, it is a nice deflection from the core 'stay our of our neighborhood" that is really the message.

Let's leave the hydrology to the experts .... and hope that the DC government engages some! However, both Sidwell Friends School and Hearst School are situated at a higher elevation than most of Hearst Park. It might be one thing if DC were proposing to build the pool at the Hearst playground location, up the slope. (Even Cheh clearly knows that taking the part of the playground area for a pool would be too heavy a political lift.) But all of the DPR 'options' locate the pool downhill in the bowl, at the levels where the field and the tennis courts are located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the "we don't want any nice things for our neighborhood" and "we don't want 'other' parking on our streets or using our parks" is Trumpian.

And the hydrology thing is totally bogus. If it were an issue, neither the Hearst school nor the Sidwell gym would have been feasible. And, if the issue is the field, then put the pool where the tennis courts are located, as proposed. See, no hyrdology issue there.

But keep hanging your chad on that issue, it is a nice deflection from the core 'stay our of our neighborhood" that is really the message.

If "stay out of our neighborhood" were really the issue, then nearby neighbors might find a small pool that is open at most 12 weeks a year during summer (when people may be vacationing away for some time) a more attractive proposition than keeping the full-sized soccer field that is constantly in use during the spring and fall playing seasons. At other times, there are adults playing soccer, for whom the full sized field is a draw. On weekends throughout much of the year, there is a constant ballet of numerous youth soccer teams and their parents in and out of the park (and their DC, MD and even VA vehicles parking on the streets). If the true purpose were "stay out", then the logical move might be to put the pool on the field, knowing that a small field likely would substantially reduce the number of teams and players from outside the neighborhood wanting to use it.

But "keep out" is just a red herring. Frequent Hearst users want don't want a pool that is used less than one-quarter of the year, to adversely change the field, the tennis courts, possibly the playground, the green space, the wonderful tree canopy. They want to Hearst to remain a green park that serves many, many recreational users annually, from both the neigbhborhood and the broader area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the "we don't want any nice things for our neighborhood" and "we don't want 'other' parking on our streets or using our parks" is Trumpian.

And the hydrology thing is totally bogus. If it were an issue, neither the Hearst school nor the Sidwell gym would have been feasible. And, if the issue is the field, then put the pool where the tennis courts are located, as proposed. See, no hyrdology issue there.

But keep hanging your chad on that issue, it is a nice deflection from the core 'stay our of our neighborhood" that is really the message.

If "stay out of our neighborhood" were really the issue, then nearby neighbors might find a small pool that is open at most 12 weeks a year during summer (when people may be vacationing away for some time) a more attractive proposition than keeping the full-sized soccer field that is constantly in use during the spring and fall playing seasons. At other times, there are adults playing soccer, for whom the full sized field is a draw. On weekends throughout much of the year, there is a constant ballet of numerous youth soccer teams and their parents in and out of the park (and their DC, MD and even VA vehicles parking on the streets). If the true purpose were "stay out", then the logical move might be to put the pool on the field, knowing that a small field likely would substantially reduce the number of teams and players from outside the neighborhood wanting to use it.

But "keep out" is just a red herring. Frequent Hearst users want don't want a pool that is used less than one-quarter of the year, to adversely change the field, the tennis courts, possibly the playground, the green space, the wonderful tree canopy. They want to Hearst to remain a green park that serves many, many recreational users annually, from both the neigbhborhood and the broader area.

As someone who is involved with youth soccer I can vouch for the essential correctness of this. At many of the locations where soccer is played, the neighbors are constantly hatching schemes to find other uses for the park that basically keep it from being used, whether it's planting trees that encroach on the field area, limiting hours of play or creating phantom programs. At one park the "friends of" group even tried to get site control given to a private school to keep the public from using it. What's ironic is that these efforts tend to be directed at "outsiders" but they mostly happen in the neighborhoods that are home to the most soccer players. (For political reasons soccer is rarely played in DC outside of the neighborhoods where soccer is popular).

Hearst, by contrast, seems to be largely free of these shenanigans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an option that shows 2 tennis courts and a pool. Problem solved.

All of the options show the soccer field dramatically reduced in size.

Unfortunately, as the DPR team and the firm that DC contracted to plan the Hearst Park renovations have explained, the three proposed pool options for Hearst Park with a pool are basically just conceptual and are not dimensionally accurate or reflect all of a pool's ancillary facilities. As a post on the neighborhood list serve explains, none of those drawings accurately depicts the pool house and changing facilities, the concrete pool deck, nor the ADA pathways that will be required. The Department of General Services, which has overall responsibility for physical construction, also confirmed that there have not been any hydrology or feasibility studies done at the park to ensure that Hearst Park is actually a feasible location for a pool. This is important, not least because of the park's high water table.

It seems that the notion of pool at Hearst is basically Trumpian: don't worry about the details, it will be totally amazing and fantastic, believe me.

But DPR and DGS just completed a survey where they asked stakeholders to vote for one of the three proposals, and presumably they are going to use the results to guide future decision-making. Saying they are "conceptual" and not to scale is tantamount to saying they're meaningless. It's pretty apparent that any design is going to require compromises, the point of the public input is to gauge which compromises are palatable to the public. If they then pivot and say the choices that were presented aren't really the choices the whole process falls apart.

I have to say that this has not been the city government's finest hour. In the best of conditions this would be a complicated process, and it's been bungled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an option that shows 2 tennis courts and a pool. Problem solved.

All of the options show the soccer field dramatically reduced in size.

Unfortunately, as the DPR team and the firm that DC contracted to plan the Hearst Park renovations have explained, the three proposed pool options for Hearst Park with a pool are basically just conceptual and are not dimensionally accurate or reflect all of a pool's ancillary facilities. As a post on the neighborhood list serve explains, none of those drawings accurately depicts the pool house and changing facilities, the concrete pool deck, nor the ADA pathways that will be required. The Department of General Services, which has overall responsibility for physical construction, also confirmed that there have not been any hydrology or feasibility studies done at the park to ensure that Hearst Park is actually a feasible location for a pool. This is important, not least because of the park's high water table.

It seems that the notion of pool at Hearst is basically Trumpian: don't worry about the details, it will be totally amazing and fantastic, believe me.

But DPR and DGS just completed a survey where they asked stakeholders to vote for one of the three proposals, and presumably they are going to use the results to guide future decision-making. Saying they are "conceptual" and not to scale is tantamount to saying they're meaningless. It's pretty apparent that any design is going to require compromises, the point of the public input is to gauge which compromises are palatable to the public. If they then pivot and say the choices that were presented aren't really the choices the whole process falls apart.

I have to say that this has not been the city government's finest hour. In the best of conditions this would be a complicated process, and it's been bungled.

Not only are the conceptual options largely meaningless, so is the 'survey' itself. If you read this thread, you will see a Hearst pool advocate urging like-minded supporters to use every on-line device they own to complete the survey multiple times and skew the results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an option that shows 2 tennis courts and a pool. Problem solved.

All of the options show the soccer field dramatically reduced in size.

Unfortunately, as the DPR team and the firm that DC contracted to plan the Hearst Park renovations have explained, the three proposed pool options for Hearst Park with a pool are basically just conceptual and are not dimensionally accurate or reflect all of a pool's ancillary facilities. As a post on the neighborhood list serve explains, none of those drawings accurately depicts the pool house and changing facilities, the concrete pool deck, nor the ADA pathways that will be required. The Department of General Services, which has overall responsibility for physical construction, also confirmed that there have not been any hydrology or feasibility studies done at the park to ensure that Hearst Park is actually a feasible location for a pool. This is important, not least because of the park's high water table.

It seems that the notion of pool at Hearst is basically Trumpian: don't worry about the details, it will be totally amazing and fantastic, believe me.

But DPR and DGS just completed a survey where they asked stakeholders to vote for one of the three proposals, and presumably they are going to use the results to guide future decision-making. Saying they are "conceptual" and not to scale is tantamount to saying they're meaningless. It's pretty apparent that any design is going to require compromises, the point of the public input is to gauge which compromises are palatable to the public. If they then pivot and say the choices that were presented aren't really the choices the whole process falls apart.

I have to say that this has not been the city government's finest hour. In the best of conditions this would be a complicated process, and it's been bungled.

Not only are the conceptual options largely meaningless, so is the 'survey' itself. If you read this thread, you will see a Hearst pool advocate urging like-minded supporters to use every on-line device they own to complete the survey multiple times and skew the results.

Disturbing and sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an option that shows 2 tennis courts and a pool. Problem solved.

All of the options show the soccer field dramatically reduced in size.

Unfortunately, as the DPR team and the firm that DC contracted to plan the Hearst Park renovations have explained, the three proposed pool options for Hearst Park with a pool are basically just conceptual and are not dimensionally accurate or reflect all of a pool's ancillary facilities. As a post on the neighborhood list serve explains, none of those drawings accurately depicts the pool house and changing facilities, the concrete pool deck, nor the ADA pathways that will be required. The Department of General Services, which has overall responsibility for physical construction, also confirmed that there have not been any hydrology or feasibility studies done at the park to ensure that Hearst Park is actually a feasible location for a pool. This is important, not least because of the park's high water table.

It seems that the notion of pool at Hearst is basically Trumpian: don't worry about the details, it will be totally amazing and fantastic, believe me.

But DPR and DGS just completed a survey where they asked stakeholders to vote for one of the three proposals, and presumably they are going to use the results to guide future decision-making. Saying they are "conceptual" and not to scale is tantamount to saying they're meaningless. It's pretty apparent that any design is going to require compromises, the point of the public input is to gauge which compromises are palatable to the public. If they then pivot and say the choices that were presented aren't really the choices the whole process falls apart.

I have to say that this has not been the city government's finest hour. In the best of conditions this would be a complicated process, and it's been bungled.

Not only are the conceptual options largely meaningless, so is the 'survey' itself. If you read this thread, you will see a Hearst pool advocate urging like-minded supporters to use every on-line device they own to complete the survey multiple times and skew the results.

Funny uoi note that because it was copied verbatim from an email to the anti-pool neighbors and lists.