Hearst Playground story in Current

[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.

Northwest Washington is not NY City. I'm growning tired of those who left (or perhaps washed out of) the Big Apple who come to D.C. and desire to remake everything in Gotham's image: junking the height limit, turning green parks into concrete "recreation centers," etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Northwest Washington is not NY City. I'm growning tired of those who left (or perhaps washed out of) the Big Apple who come to D.C. and desire to remake everything in Gotham's image: junking the height limit, turning green parks into concrete "recreation centers," etc.

Uh ok I see - so DC/DPR/Cheh/Ward 3 parents are proposing to Manhattanize Hearst/Cleveland Park because they want to add an outdoor swimming pool to the park?

Using silly hyperbole like this is not going to help you to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Actually, if you looked at the satellite image, then you would see the very heavily wooded areas previously mentioned, Hazen trail, Glover Archibald Park and Rock Creek Park.

There is plenty of natual forest and green space all immediately adjacent to Hearst that should fully illustrate how and why a pool is totally appropriate there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, if you looked at the satellite image, then you would see the very heavily wooded areas previously mentioned, Hazen trail, Glover Archibald Park and Rock Creek Park.

There is plenty of natual forest and green space all immediately adjacent to Hearst that should fully illustrate how and why a pool is totally appropriate there.

No one claims that Hearst is a forest. It is, however, a small park with heavily-used recreational facilities (a full-sized field, tennis courts, playground) and a wonderful canopy provided by large oaks. Most of the other tree cover is on very sloped land which is unusable for recreation. Hearst is just too small for a pool without sacrificing one of more existing recreational uses. Moreover, extensive excavation required for a pool and its infrastructure likely would requiring the removal of a number of the oaks. Casey Trees this past year stated that one of DPR's main goals should be preserving tree canopy and green spaces in DC's parks.

[Anonymous]

I have never seen a proposal that suggests touching or harming any one of those trees. Please stop with the Alternative Facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never seen a proposal that suggests touching or harming any one of those trees. Please stop with the Alternative Facts.

Of course DC doesn't suggest harming any trees at Hearst Park, but they've tried to stay away from discussing tradeoffs as much as possible. One of the proposals (which DPR admitted is not to scale) shows the pool where one of the tennis courts is. (How a pool, pool house, surrounding pool deck and equipment fit on the footprint of one tennis court is beyond comprehension, but again DPR's drawings do not represent accurate scale). The tennis courts sit under the canopy/drip line of a number of large oaks. Any excavation (which for a pool is pretty deep) in the vicinity of the tennis courts will impact the root structure of the large trees, which would have to come down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course DC doesn't suggest harming any trees at Hearst Park, but they've tried to stay away from discussing tradeoffs as much as possible. One of the proposals (which DPR admitted is not to scale) shows the pool where one of the tennis courts is. (How a pool, pool house, surrounding pool deck and equipment fit on the footprint of one tennis court is beyond comprehension, but again DPR's drawings do not represent accurate scale). The tennis courts sit under the canopy/drip line of a number of large oaks. Any excavation (which for a pool is pretty deep) in the vicinity of the tennis courts will impact the root structure of the large trees, which would have to come down.

So you admit you are creating alternative facts and then go on with blah blah blah.

NO ONE has suggested removing any trees. Period. Full stop.

Please stop with it and move on to another area of hyperbole that can be shot down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course DC doesn't suggest harming any trees at Hearst Park, but they've tried to stay away from discussing tradeoffs as much as possible. One of the proposals (which DPR admitted is not to scale) shows the pool where one of the tennis courts is. (How a pool, pool house, surrounding pool deck and equipment fit on the footprint of one tennis court is beyond comprehension, but again DPR's drawings do not represent accurate scale). The tennis courts sit under the canopy/drip line of a number of large oaks. Any excavation (which for a pool is pretty deep) in the vicinity of the tennis courts will impact the root structure of the large trees, which would have to come down.

So you admit you are creating alternative facts and then go on with blah blah blah.

NO ONE has suggested removing any trees. Period. Full stop.

Please stop with it and move on to another area of hyperbole that can be shot down.

With all due respect, you are the one who is being disingenuous. Of course, DPR is not conceding that trees will be harmed, just as they are trying to avoid a full public discussion of the other hard tradeoffs that come with a pool in this small park. And if using drawings which (in a rare admission) DC admits are not to scale isn't "alternative facts," it's hard to know what is. But anyone with any construction and arboreal knowledge knows that they can't pour footers and excavate for a pool, pool house, etc. under the drip line without compromising the trees.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure how you can claim that DPR is avoiding a full public discussion. There have been several public meetings, walk-throughs and the project manager answers her phone and responds to emails.

The whole process has been quite transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure how you can claim that DPR is avoiding a full public discussion. There have been several public meetings, walk-throughs and the project manager answers her phone and responds to emails.

The whole process has been quite transparent.

What's her explanation for not sharing scale drawings of the Hearst pool sites? Or DC's statement that NPS sites for a pool are not possible, when D.C. Has no paper trail that it ever made the request of the Park Service. Doesn't seem very transparent.

[Anonymous]

Hearst anti pool person, I think we need to look at what's going on in CP abs Tenleytown at large. I am not personally anti pool but your point hits home that there's been a lot of development ans the height requirement also seeks to be becoming fungible in the hands of our civic leaders. However, when you focus just on the pool, or someone else on the homeless shelter, and someone else about Sidwwll and someone else about gds it seems like NIMbY whining. How do we have a discussion to looking at how this pace of development overall is impacting traffic parking trees and ambiance. I think the city would like to keep it on thr divide and conquer level. Is there any person or group who is connecting the dots to form a grounded rebuttal for some of these proposals or even some aspects of these proposals (to tweak or scale them back)?

[Anonymous]

I am not anti pool at all and am not a nearby neighbor to Hearst Park. However, my kids use Hearst a lot, and it's just too small of a location for a pool withiut fundamentally altering the park, the whole reason that Hearst was chosen in the first place was it was politically and bureaucratically expedient. Cheh thought that it would be nice if Ward 3 had its "own" pool, Hearst was next in line for a renovation, so it was convenient simply to attach some additional funding to the Hearst appropriation for a pool. No site analysis was done and no alternatives were considered. There was never any real outreach to the Park Service for a possible site at centrally-located Ft Reno. DPR staff made clear initially that a pool at Hearst was not their choice. While the Department of General Services then moved forward for pool planning at Hearst, the mayor took the pool funds out of the next budget and Cheh herself has made no effort to restore them. My sense is that ultimately, while there may be a pool, it will not be built at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

People have been clamoring for a pool in the area for decades. Jim Nathanson heard about it, Kathy Patterson heard about it and Mary Cheh heard about it. There is overwhelming and long standing support for a pool that is in the area.

NPS has said no. It is on record, and the deflection about it is pointless.

Whether Hearst was expedient or not, the fact is, all of the polling and outreach has suggested very strong political support for the pool. Cheh reacted by getting money into the budget.

Please, run for Council against Cheh and make this a cornerstone of your campaign. I will guarantee you will lose with only single digit support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not anti pool at all and am not a nearby neighbor to Hearst Park. However, my kids use Hearst a lot, and it's just too small of a location for a pool withiut fundamentally altering the park, the whole reason that Hearst was chosen in the first place was it was politically and bureaucratically expedient. Cheh thought that it would be nice if Ward 3 had its "own" pool, Hearst was next in line for a renovation, so it was convenient simply to attach some additional funding to the Hearst appropriation for a pool. No site analysis was done and no alternatives were considered. There was never any real outreach to the Park Service for a possible site at centrally-located Ft Reno. DPR staff made clear initially that a pool at Hearst was not their choice. While the Department of General Services then moved forward for pool planning at Hearst, the mayor took the pool funds out of the next budget and Cheh herself has made no effort to restore them. My sense is that ultimately, while there may be a pool, it will not be built at Hearst.

If you are not anti-pool and not a nearby neighbor then why are you repeating, verbatim, the many times over dis-proven talking points of the anti-pool neighbors?

No site analysis was done - not true

no alternatives were considered - not true

There was never any real outreach to the Park Service - not true

DPR staff made clear initially that a pool at Hearst was not their choice - never even heard this one before - since I've attended all of the meetings and even the anti-pool folks haven't referenced revealing this via FOIA for the moment I'm going to assume that this is also not true

Cheh herself has made no effort to restore them - not true

Therefore I am assuming that "I am not anti pool at all and am not a nearby neighbor to Hearst Park" - also not true

BTW if you are not a neighbor why would you be using Hearst a lot? It offers nothing that other parks in the immediate area don't also offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hearst anti pool person, I think we need to look at what's going on in CP abs Tenleytown at large. I am not personally anti pool but your point hits home that there's been a lot of development ans the height requirement also seeks to be becoming fungible in the hands of our civic leaders. However, when you focus just on the pool, or someone else on the homeless shelter, and someone else about Sidwwll and someone else about gds it seems like NIMbY whining. How do we have a discussion to looking at how this pace of development overall is impacting traffic parking trees and ambiance. I think the city would like to keep it on thr divide and conquer level. Is there any person or group who is connecting the dots to form a grounded rebuttal for some of these proposals or even some aspects of these proposals (to tweak or scale them back)?

Another crazy post.

There has been virtually no development in Cleveland Park except for the Giant project which is barely bigger than what it replaced and smaller than what surrounds it - the neighborhood unfortunately has succeeded in killing every proposal that has come along.

There are no proposals to change the height limit right now - the DC Council decided that it should not even have the option to vote on it.

Oddly in part because there has been no development the neighborhood is getting two new lower private schools that will cater to a largely suburbanite clientele who will mostly drive so in that sense the neighborhood is getting what it deserves - if those plots of land had been developed for housing they would have almost certainly generated less traffic and parking demand but those projects are both essentially matter of right with minimal neighborhood input which is probably not a coincidence.

What impact has their been on trees or parking to date when we've essentially had no development? The city has been planting an impressive number of trees the last 4-5 years and the tree canopy in Ward 3 is in fantastic shape.

It is not hard to connect the dots - you live in a city and cities usually change or die. Most of DC is changing and is thriving. Cleveland Park is not changing and it is not thriving.

Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees. Or maybe you forgot to take your geritol again but neither the truth nor what is going on is particularly complicated.