Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

Why do you keep suggesting it is only Cleveland Park residents who oppose a pool at this location? I live on Van Ness and think that wedging in a pool at Hearst would negatively impact this beautiful park as we know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

And if tennis courts are relocated and rebuilt elsewhere, what's sacrificed for that? A portion of the field? Existing playground space? The large oaks? Adding a pool complex at Hearst Park is like squeezing a balloon. People just have to understand what is gained, what is lost and other impacts.

It is not like squeezing a balloon - are you familiar with the space or have you looked at the drawings? Have you been to Jeleff or Volta which have much more stuff, including pools, squeezed into much smaller spaces?

There is no playground and no large oaks would be lost - the tennis court site is particularly well suited for the pool because it is above the elevation of the mature trees and would not come anywhere close to their root structure and for what it is worth it is below the lesser trees along Quebec Street and wouldn't impact them either. It would also be completely shielded from the street and partially shielded from the interior of the park so the poor Cleveland Park residents would have minimal exposure to the horrors of looking at a shuttered facility part of the year.

There is plenty of space elsewhere in the park to add 2 tennis courts without taking down any trees.

Please go visit some of these parks or spend some time scrutinizing the proposals rather than simply repeating the talking points of the opponents.

https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

Why do you keep suggesting it is only Cleveland Park residents who oppose a pool at this location? I live on Van Ness and think that wedging in a pool at Hearst would negatively impact this beautiful park as we know it.

I don't understand your point - Van Ness Street is 2 blocks away so you are definitely an immediate neighbor and DC considers Quebec Street to be the northern border of CP so technically the park is not even in CP - to be accurate should I characterize opponents as residents of CP and Van Ness?

[Anonymous]

" I don't understand your point - Van Ness Street is 2 blocks away so you are definitely an immediate neighbor and DC considers Quebec Street to be the northern border of CP so technically the park is not even in CP - to be accurate should I characterize opponents as residents of CP and Van Ness?"

Actually, Rodman Street is the northern border of CP. But I would say that nearby neighbors are split about the park. I know of opponents and supporters who live close to the park and others that live further away. The unifying factor of people who oppose building a pool in the park maybe that they are current users. There are also a fair number of people who oppose the pool for historic, environmental and aesthetic reasons. The opponents are the most energized. They are the ones raising money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

You keep saying this. But kindly explain how a pool, the changing & rest rooms, equipment shed, and pool deck fit into the footprint of a single tennis court. It would have to be a very, very, very small pool indeed.

Please go and look at the proposals - the two tennis courts that remain are located elsewhere within the park. And yes the proposals are all for a standard size DC pool with the required apron & pool house. I know it is easy for CP residents to assume they are the only competent people in the room but the planners understand everything that is required for a legal and functioning pool.

Why do you keep suggesting it is only Cleveland Park residents who oppose a pool at this location? I live on Van Ness and think that wedging in a pool at Hearst would negatively impact this beautiful park as we know it.

I don't understand your point - Van Ness Street is 2 blocks away so you are definitely an immediate neighbor and DC considers Quebec Street to be the northern border of CP so technically the park is not even in CP - to be accurate should I characterize opponents as residents of CP and Van Ness?

Actually, you're kind of acknowledging a different point, that closer neighbors tend to be more frequent users of Hearst. While various people who live close may or may not support a pool, frequent users tend to value the current park and understand the tradeoffs involved with a pool. It's easier to be for a pool at what may be simply a convenient location for you, if you are not a frequent user of the existing park facilities and green space today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Your ad hominem argument aside, no doubt the aesthetics of a fenced concrete complex next to the historic district (and impact on the mature tree canopy) persuaded the board of the Cleveland Park Historical Society to go on record against shoe-horning in a pool at Hearst Park.

The CPHS, whole taking the action, had absolutely no jurisdiction to do so, as Hearst is outside of the Cleveland Park Historic District.

I cancelled my membership in protest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't blame the neighbors- who wants a pool filled with urine 3 months out of the year sitting in the middle of a nice green space. Lots of people coming in from other neighborhoods. Sounds like they made right decision to nix the pool.

Why would people be coming from other neighborhoods to use this pool? Other neighborhoods have pools. It is the same false argument that people made about the Wisconsin Avenue Giant, that people would be coming from all over the region to use this particular store. In fact, other neighborhoods up and down Wisconsin and Conn Ave have grocery stores. Most of the people who use our Giant are from the neighborhood.

Same thing with the pool. It will be a great community asset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you're kind of acknowledging a different point, that closer neighbors tend to be more frequent users of Hearst. While various people who live close may or may not support a pool, frequent users tend to value the current park and understand the tradeoffs involved with a pool. It's easier to be for a pool at what may be simply a convenient location for you, if you are not a frequent user of the existing park facilities and green space today.

We are all DC residents who pay for DPR facilities that we as DC residents can use. Just because you might live closer than me doesn't give you the right to dictate how I or any other DC might want to use the facility. That is why there are unbiased staffers who assess the facility needs and fill needs based on reconstruction and renovation schedules.

DPR's master plan called for 2 new pools in the Rock Creek West area, Hearst is in that area. Hence pool

I am a taxpayer and support the plan. There are more of us than you. You live close by and don't want the burden. Then move. But don't screw up a once in a lifetime opportunity for the rest of us. That is plain selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we are in a fact free fear mongering zone which is no surprise but there has never been a proposal to build the pool in the middle of the field or to eliminate the soccer field at all - option two slightly shrinks the currently non-regulation soccer field ...

There is no such thing as a "regulation-size" soccer field. FIFA publishes minimum and maximum dimensions and length-to-width ratios, and US Soccer and state associations create standards for youth play. The current field is within FIFA and VYSA standards for size (DC is part of Virginia for the sake of soccer). None of the proposed fields meet FIFA minimums or VYSA standards -- they are too long for their width.

No one wants to wind up with an itty-bitty soccer field at Hearst like you see at Hardy middle school. Pathetically small.

Fortunately that has never been proposed.

One of the pool options shows a much reduced-size soccer field. Given that the pool drawings, by DC's own admission, are not to scale, the resulting field is likely to be even smaller. But it will be ok for the three year-old players.

Again untrue - I referenced this a couple of days ago but the one (out of three) options with a reduced soccer field reduces the size of the field by 13% and it is still a much larger field than what 3 year olds play on (and you are belying your lack of knowledge about soccer because there are no organized teams for 3 year olds). The other two options leave the field as is.

You are either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation but it is a smart ploy to spread disinformation. What is lost in all 3 proposals is one of the three lightly used tennis courts - there just won't be much outrage about the loss of a lightly used tennis courts.

Soccer parents on the other hand know how in demand field time is and more likely to ponder the trade-off but since it doesn't exist it is a red herring.

BTW Stoddert only uses the field for it's high school club players which is its smallest program and most of those players primarily play their soccer on their High School teams fields.

But again in 2 of the 3 scenarios there is no change to the soccer field.

Why the trafficking in fake news? It totally undermines the credibility of the 'pool of our own' position. My kids, who are 11 and 13, played soccer games regularly at Hearst these past two seasons.

I have two kids who play in the Stoddert high school division and I can say that:
* It is not true that Stoddert only uses Hearst for high school
* It is not true that high school is the smallest division
* It is not true that most of the kids in the program play primarily on their school fields.

By the way, Stoddert is not the only organization that uses Hearst.

[Anonymous]

I live across the street from Hearst and am delighted that it will not have a pool. A pool would destroy the neighborhood during the summer months with all the cars and the noise. It would also take away some of the lovely tennis courts, which unlike a pool can be used year around and w/o all of the commotion of a pool. And we much prefer looking out on the open green space than a pool facility thank you very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your ad hominem argument aside, no doubt the aesthetics of a fenced concrete complex next to the historic district (and impact on the mature tree canopy) persuaded the board of the Cleveland Park Historical Society to go on record against shoe-horning in a pool at Hearst Park.

The CPHS, whole taking the action, had absolutely no jurisdiction to do so, as Hearst is outside of the Cleveland Park Historic District.

I cancelled my membership in protest.

I'm sure that they miss you terribly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you're kind of acknowledging a different point, that closer neighbors tend to be more frequent users of Hearst. While various people who live close may or may not support a pool, frequent users tend to value the current park and understand the tradeoffs involved with a pool. It's easier to be for a pool at what may be simply a convenient location for you, if you are not a frequent user of the existing park facilities and green space today.

We are all DC residents who pay for DPR facilities that we as DC residents can use. Just because you might live closer than me doesn't give you the right to dictate how I or any other DC might want to use the facility. That is why there are unbiased staffers who assess the facility needs and fill needs based on reconstruction and renovation schedules.

DPR's master plan called for 2 new pools in the Rock Creek West area, Hearst is in that area. Hence pool

I am a taxpayer and support the plan. There are more of us than you. You live close by and don't want the burden. Then move. But don't screw up a once in a lifetime opportunity for the rest of us. That is plain selfish.

Classic YIYBY -- Yes, in your backyard !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, you're kind of acknowledging a different point, that closer neighbors tend to be more frequent users of Hearst. While various people who live close may or may not support a pool, frequent users tend to value the current park and understand the tradeoffs involved with a pool. It's easier to be for a pool at what may be simply a convenient location for you, if you are not a frequent user of the existing park facilities and green space today.

We are all DC residents who pay for DPR facilities that we as DC residents can use. Just because you might live closer than me doesn't give you the right to dictate how I or any other DC might want to use the facility. That is why there are unbiased staffers who assess the facility needs and fill needs based on reconstruction and renovation schedules.

DPR's master plan called for 2 new pools in the Rock Creek West area, Hearst is in that area. Hence pool

I am a taxpayer and support the plan. There are more of us than you. You live close by and don't want the burden. Then move. But don't screw up a once in a lifetime opportunity for the rest of us. That is plain selfish.

Classic YIYBY -- Yes, in your backyard !

Classic NIMBY - I don't own the land, the public does. but because I live close to it, I shall dictate to others with the exact same standing, what should or should not, happen there.

Selfish.