Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Dream on, or more to the point, rant on! If Hearst is truly the only site for a Ward 3 pool, then there probably won't be a pool in the ward. . Hydrology issues at Hearst make Klingle Valley seem like the Mojave (and it was hydrology challenges and the cost of addressing them that finally sank rebuilding Klingle Rd.) . Even if Hearst pool got permits, it's likely to be tied up in suits from the DC Sierra Club, Casey Trees, the Hearst Park Friends group, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dream on, or more to the point, rant on! If Hearst is truly the only site for a Ward 3 pool, then there probably won't be a pool in the ward. . Hydrology issues at Hearst make Klingle Valley seem like the Mojave (and it was hydrology challenges and the cost of addressing them that finally sank rebuilding Klingle Rd.) . Even if Hearst pool got permits, it's likely to be tied up in suits from the DC Sierra Club, Casey Trees, the Hearst Park Friends group, etc.

The hydrology issues are totally manufactured. If there were such issues, they would also have been present for the Sidwell gym, which goes as far down as the soccer field.

When it has been debunked and you continue to use it, it undermines your credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dream on, or more to the point, rant on! If Hearst is truly the only site for a Ward 3 pool, then there probably won't be a pool in the ward. . Hydrology issues at Hearst make Klingle Valley seem like the Mojave (and it was hydrology challenges and the cost of addressing them that finally sank rebuilding Klingle Rd.) . Even if Hearst pool got permits, it's likely to be tied up in suits from the DC Sierra Club, Casey Trees, the Hearst Park Friends group, etc.

The hydrology issues are totally manufactured. If there were such issues, they would also have been present for the Sidwell gym, which goes as far down as the soccer field.

When it has been debunked and you continue to use it, it undermines your credibility.

With the high water table, maybe DC can just dig a hole, and viola! A spring fed pool. No concrete liner or deck required. And easy on the mature oaks. It would be unique among D.C. Swimming facilities. Now that might be something that the pave-it crowd and the tree huggers could get behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dream on, or more to the point, rant on! If Hearst is truly the only site for a Ward 3 pool, then there probably won't be a pool in the ward. . Hydrology issues at Hearst make Klingle Valley seem like the Mojave (and it was hydrology challenges and the cost of addressing them that finally sank rebuilding Klingle Rd.) . Even if Hearst pool got permits, it's likely to be tied up in suits from the DC Sierra Club, Casey Trees, the Hearst Park Friends group, etc.

The hydrology issues are totally manufactured. If there were such issues, they would also have been present for the Sidwell gym, which goes as far down as the soccer field.

When it has been debunked and you continue to use it, it undermines your credibility.

I hate to point the finger at Sidwell, but construction of its athletic center almost 10 years ago, upslope from Hearst Park, may well have made Hearst's water problem worse.

[Anonymous]

The water issues on Springland Lane are real and need to be dealt with, but the intensity of rains and follow-on flooding are not because Sidwell built a gym.

Sorry, but your understanding of the issues here are sorely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. The hydrology problems at Hearst have very little to Sidwell but everything to do with the parks unsuitability as a pool site.

[Anonymous]

I cannot believe that this thread has gone on for so long over siting a swimming pool. If you guys cannot find a suitable site, I'd recommend that DC build it in Bethesda because we would love a pool. Our county government is approving new construction of mega-apartments left and right without setting aside any land for parks and schools. Sometimes people may not understand how good that they actually have it.

[Anonymous]

Just a quick look at the satellite map should be enough to convince anyone that the Hearst site is way too small to be burdened with an ugly pool facility that will be locked up 8 months of the year. If there were a way to construct a convertible pool/tennis (or platform tennis!) arrangement that would cover up the pool 8 months a year and keep the facility in use, that would be ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick look at the satellite map should be enough to convince anyone that the Hearst site is way too small to be burdened with an ugly pool facility that will be locked up 8 months of the year. If there were a way to construct a convertible pool/tennis (or platform tennis!) arrangement that would cover up the pool 8 months a year and keep the facility in use, that would be ideal.

The poor folks in Cleveland Park should not have to suffer in the manner that other communities have had to by needing to occasionally walk past a locked up pool facility - the horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick look at the satellite map should be enough to convince anyone that the Hearst site is way too small to be burdened with an ugly pool facility that will be locked up 8 months of the year. If there were a way to construct a convertible pool/tennis (or platform tennis!) arrangement that would cover up the pool 8 months a year and keep the facility in use, that would be ideal.

Correct. Hearst is simply too small a space to build even a modest sized pool without sacrificing one or more other recreational uses there, as well as a meaningful portion of the tree canopy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick look at the satellite map should be enough to convince anyone that the Hearst site is way too small to be burdened with an ugly pool facility that will be locked up 8 months of the year. If there were a way to construct a convertible pool/tennis (or platform tennis!) arrangement that would cover up the pool 8 months a year and keep the facility in use, that would be ideal.

That has been proposed and is under consideration. It is commonplace in NY City to have multiple uses for pool sites during the non-swimming months. Maybe rather than fight the pool, tell DPR what uses you would like to see during the off season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick look at the satellite map should be enough to convince anyone that the Hearst site is way too small to be burdened with an ugly pool facility that will be locked up 8 months of the year. If there were a way to construct a convertible pool/tennis (or platform tennis!) arrangement that would cover up the pool 8 months a year and keep the facility in use, that would be ideal.

That has been proposed and is under consideration. It is commonplace in NY City to have multiple uses for pool sites during the non-swimming months. Maybe rather than fight the pool, tell DPR what uses you would like to see during the off season.

I'd love to see DPR empty the park wastebaskets during the season and throughout the year. The fact that they struggle even to do that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in how they will maintain a pool, outdoor pool house and anything else that requires a higher level of upkeep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick look at the satellite map should be enough to convince anyone that the Hearst site is way too small to be burdened with an ugly pool facility that will be locked up 8 months of the year. If there were a way to construct a convertible pool/tennis (or platform tennis!) arrangement that would cover up the pool 8 months a year and keep the facility in use, that would be ideal.

That has been proposed and is under consideration. It is commonplace in NY City to have multiple uses for pool sites during the non-swimming months. Maybe rather than fight the pool, tell DPR what uses you would like to see during the off season.

Argghh! First they want to wreck a small leafy green park. Now they want to turn it into a NYC concrete rec space.

[Anonymous]

It's not like Hearst is some sort of untouched forest in the city, like say the Hazen Trial, the Glover trail Rock Creek Park etc that are all right there, a stone's throw from Hearst. Hearst is a fully pre-planned urban park that is designed to provide park and recreational activities for the residents of the city.

If you want a sylvan park, there are literally hundreds of miles of park immediately adjacent to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not like Hearst is some sort of untouched forest in the city, like say the Hazen Trial, the Glover trail Rock Creek Park etc that are all right there, a stone's throw from Hearst. Hearst is a fully pre-planned urban park that is designed to provide park and recreational activities for the residents of the city.

If you want a sylvan park, there are literally hundreds of miles of park immediately adjacent to Hearst.

Exactly. Hearst is a small, planned public park with much-used recreational facilities. Unfortunately there is no room for a swimming pool and related infrastructure there, without throwing out that plan and sacrificing one or more of the existing recreational activities.

It's time for Prof. Che to go back to the blackboard.