Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting tidbit in the Current letter today: describing one of the meetings, the writer writes, "we were shocked when, in response to a question, the architect said the drawings are not to scale."

Which is something that posters on this thread have pointed out.

Leaving aside the question of whether the pool is wanted or not, the city's approach just seems so amateurish.

Of course they aren't to scale. As I've said before, if anyone actually believes a public pool with its decks and equipment will take up the space of one single tennis court, I've a got bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Nine of the drawings included any of that. Just a randomly plopped pool somewhere on the property.

The DC government is certainly taking a Trumpian alt-reality view of the facts. Providing drawings not to scale is ridiculous.

Right, and it makes you wonder what they think the end-game is. When the pool gets built and looks nothing like the drawings, are people going to say, "well, it looks nothing like the drawings, but I like it anyway," or are they going to say "wait a minute, that's not what we signed up for!" I think the second is more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

Funny. I've been a CPHS member for 15 years and I haven't heard this at all.

Hearst Park borders the Cleveland Park Historic District on two sides. Hearst Park also lies within what is generally considered the boundaries of Cleveland Park (see for example, CP Citizens Association borders). While the Architectural Review Committee directly passes on the design of projects within the historic district itself, CPCA has a broader mission, to "promote interest in the history of Cleveland Park and to encourage preservation of its architectural heritage and character as a friendly residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community." Preservation of a park, including its green space character, which is heavily used by the Cleveland Park neighborhood, would seem to be within this mission.

That's because it was more than 15 years ago. It was in 1999 with respect to Cathedral Commons. Almost the whole Board turned over and it almost killed the organization. CPCA and its borders are different than the CPHS which has jurisdiction over the Historic District and the Historic District only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who live near Hearst Park and in the northern end of Cleveland Park tend to oppose a pool at Hearst. The farther away from the park one goes, support tends to rise. I would think it would be the opposite.

No, it makes total sense to me. Those of us who live in those areas currently use the park as is. We sled there, our kids play soccer there, we play tennis, the kids use the playground, we fly kites on the field...I love it that way. This is a residential neighborhood. It completely makes sense that those who live further away don't care if that changes for those of us who live close to the park, while if you tried to put a pool like this literally in their backyards, I suspect support would again be low from those closest to it and higher from those whose day to day lives would not be impacted.

This is exactly what happened at much-used Friendship (aka Turtle) Park in AU Park. Turtle Park is significantly larger than Hearst, but they still passed on putting a pool there.

Except in the case of Turtle Park, the neighbors wanted the pool and the baseball lobby killed it. Facts matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who live near Hearst Park and in the northern end of Cleveland Park tend to oppose a pool at Hearst. The farther away from the park one goes, support tends to rise. I would think it would be the opposite.

No, it makes total sense to me. Those of us who live in those areas currently use the park as is. We sled there, our kids play soccer there, we play tennis, the kids use the playground, we fly kites on the field...I love it that way. This is a residential neighborhood. It completely makes sense that those who live further away don't care if that changes for those of us who live close to the park, while if you tried to put a pool like this literally in their backyards, I suspect support would again be low from those closest to it and higher from those whose day to day lives would not be impacted.

This is exactly what happened at much-used Friendship (aka Turtle) Park in AU Park. Turtle Park is significantly larger than Hearst, but they still passed on putting a pool there.

Except in the case of Turtle Park, the neighbors wanted the pool and the baseball lobby killed it. Facts matter.

I live in AU Park close to Turtle Park and that's not the whole story. Neighborhood sentiment was divided, with frequent users of the park not wanting to sacrifice oft-used facilities. However, nothing got as far along as the runaway train that the Hearst pool seems to have become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

Funny. I've been a CPHS member for 15 years and I haven't heard this at all.

Hearst Park borders the Cleveland Park Historic District on two sides. Hearst Park also lies within what is generally considered the boundaries of Cleveland Park (see for example, CP Citizens Association borders). While the Architectural Review Committee directly passes on the design of projects within the historic district itself, CPCA has a broader mission, to "promote interest in the history of Cleveland Park and to encourage preservation of its architectural heritage and character as a friendly residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community." Preservation of a park, including its green space character, which is heavily used by the Cleveland Park neighborhood, would seem to be within this mission.

That's because it was more than 15 years ago. It was in 1999 with respect to Cathedral Commons. Almost the whole Board turned over and it almost killed the organization. CPCA and its borders are different than the CPHS which has jurisdiction over the Historic District and the Historic District only.

Gosh, it would have been nice is CPHS had shaped Cathedral Commons more, so that the neighborhood would have an architecturally interesting and compatible development -- instead of the cheap, drecky POS that got built!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting tidbit in the Current letter today: describing one of the meetings, the writer writes, "we were shocked when, in response to a question, the architect said the drawings are not to scale."

Which is something that posters on this thread have pointed out.

Leaving aside the question of whether the pool is wanted or not, the city's approach just seems so amateurish.

Of course they aren't to scale. As I've said before, if anyone actually believes a public pool with its decks and equipment will take up the space of one single tennis court, I've a got bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Nine of the drawings included any of that. Just a randomly plopped pool somewhere on the property.

The DC government is certainly taking a Trumpian alt-reality view of the facts. Providing drawings not to scale is ridiculous.

Right, and it makes you wonder what they think the end-game is. When the pool gets built and looks nothing like the drawings, are people going to say, "well, it looks nothing like the drawings, but I like it anyway," or are they going to say "wait a minute, that's not what we signed up for!" I think the second is more likely.

Particularly when the result involves loss of a significant portion of the playing field, the tennis courts and the shady tree canopy. DC agencies and pool proponents are pretending that we can have it all -- a nice pool with virtually nothing sacrificed. But these "alternative facts" are simply not reflective of the reality that in Hearst's relatively small footprint, significant trade-offs will be required. As much as we may wish otherwise, it's usually not possible to gorge on cake and lose weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

Funny. I've been a CPHS member for 15 years and I haven't heard this at all.

Hearst Park borders the Cleveland Park Historic District on two sides. Hearst Park also lies within what is generally considered the boundaries of Cleveland Park (see for example, CP Citizens Association borders). While the Architectural Review Committee directly passes on the design of projects within the historic district itself, CPCA has a broader mission, to "promote interest in the history of Cleveland Park and to encourage preservation of its architectural heritage and character as a friendly residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community." Preservation of a park, including its green space character, which is heavily used by the Cleveland Park neighborhood, would seem to be within this mission.

That's because it was more than 15 years ago. It was in 1999 with respect to Cathedral Commons. Almost the whole Board turned over and it almost killed the organization. CPCA and its borders are different than the CPHS which has jurisdiction over the Historic District and the Historic District only.

The Architectural Review Committee has "jurisdiction" (really review deference from HPRB) over projects within the historic district proper, although it has occasionally reviewed significant projects on its edges. CPHS has a broader mission, which includes all of Cleveland Park. And, in any event, it's a little head-in-the-sand to pretend that major construction and loss of tree canopy right across the street from the historic district has no impact on the district. By analogy, that's why the Home Rule Act and the DC court of appeals have made clear that Advisory Neighborhood Commissions have jurisdiction to consider matters on their borders, not just within them. That's why two ANCs will consider Hearst Pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

Funny. I've been a CPHS member for 15 years and I haven't heard this at all.

Hearst Park borders the Cleveland Park Historic District on two sides. Hearst Park also lies within what is generally considered the boundaries of Cleveland Park (see for example, CP Citizens Association borders). While the Architectural Review Committee directly passes on the design of projects within the historic district itself, CPCA has a broader mission, to "promote interest in the history of Cleveland Park and to encourage preservation of its architectural heritage and character as a friendly residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community." Preservation of a park, including its green space character, which is heavily used by the Cleveland Park neighborhood, would seem to be within this mission.

That's because it was more than 15 years ago. It was in 1999 with respect to Cathedral Commons. Almost the whole Board turned over and it almost killed the organization. CPCA and its borders are different than the CPHS which has jurisdiction over the Historic District and the Historic District only.

Gosh, it would have been nice is CPHS had shaped Cathedral Commons more, so that the neighborhood would have an architecturally interesting and compatible development -- instead of the cheap, drecky POS that got built!

I am the PP you are quoting. I agree. However it isn't in the historic district, so lost opportunity.

[Anonymous]

One of the DC Dept of General Services employees indicated that they are considering a fourth, compromise site for the pool. It would be on the site of the Hearst playground, which is flat and handicapped accessible. The playground could be moved to a site that is north and west of the school along Tiiden St. They may have to lose the kiddie turf play area, but there would be the large soccer field (renovated) below. Seems like a win-win.

[Anonymous]

One of the DC Dept of General Services employees indicated that they are considering a fourth, compromise site for the pool. It would be on the site of the Hearst playground, which is flat and handicapped accessible. The playground could be moved to a site that is north and west of the school along Tiiden St. They may have to lose the kiddie turf play area, but there would be the large soccer field (renovated) below. Seems like a win-win."

I would be fine with that. Either there or up at the tennis courts. If the pool is close to the school, it provides great benefits for the students and families and also there is a built in group to pressure DC on upkeep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the DC Dept of General Services employees indicated that they are considering a fourth, compromise site for the pool. It would be on the site of the Hearst playground, which is flat and handicapped accessible. The playground could be moved to a site that is north and west of the school along Tiiden St. They may have to lose the kiddie turf play area, but there would be the large soccer field (renovated) below. Seems like a win-win."

I would be fine with that. Either there or up at the tennis courts. If the pool is close to the school, it provides great benefits for the students and families and also there is a built in group to pressure DC on upkeep.

This way, there would be no real impact on existing uses -- big Stoddert field, tennis courts, green space, and the playground, as the playspace could be shifted to the other side of the school. It also improves accessibility and puts the pool in the flattest area with loss of few trees. Definitely a better solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the DC Dept of General Services employees indicated that they are considering a fourth, compromise site for the pool. It would be on the site of the Hearst playground, which is flat and handicapped accessible. The playground could be moved to a site that is north and west of the school along Tiiden St. They may have to lose the kiddie turf play area, but there would be the large soccer field (renovated) below. Seems like a win-win."

I would be fine with that. Either there or up at the tennis courts. If the pool is close to the school, it provides great benefits for the students and families and also there is a built in group to pressure DC on upkeep.

This way, there would be no real impact on existing uses -- big Stoddert field, tennis courts, green space, and the playground, as the playspace could be shifted to the other side of the school. It also improves accessibility and puts the pool in the flattest area with loss of few trees. Definitely a better solution.

Agree with this. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the pool in any of its current "not to scale" iterations, but even I could potentially get behind this option. At least with that I don't feel like Cheh et al are trying to sell a bill of goods with the "everything will still fit" nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Because of what happened at Turtle Park, Cheh is jamming the pool down Hearst's throat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because of what happened at Turtle Park, Cheh is jamming the pool down Hearst's throat.

You mean that people didn't want other facilities at Turtle Park to be paved over for a pool?

They way residents in Massachusetts Heights didn't want a 6 story homeless shelter right next door?

Cheh always kowtows to the first squeaky wheels, and then gets frustrated, digs in and jams projects down the throats of her less favored precincts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because of what happened at Turtle Park, Cheh is jamming the pool down Hearst's throat.

You mean that people didn't want other facilities at Turtle Park to be paved over for a pool?

They way residents in Massachusetts Heights didn't want a 6 story homeless shelter right next door?

Cheh always kowtows to the first squeaky wheels, and then gets frustrated, digs in and jams projects down the throats of her less favored precincts.

Many people in AU Park wanted the pool at Turtle. The baseball mafia had more sway with DGS.

It is only the selfish immediate Hearst people (who would benefit the most) who are fighting this. The NW Current article indicated over 75% of the people want the pool. If Cheh can bring it home, she will be seen as a hero.