Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

The site isn't in the woods by the stream bed, but rather on the level grassy expanse just SW of the Wilson pool entrance. Not the most scenic spot in the world, but very central, accessible (by Metro, bus and lots of parking) and efficient (opportunity for shared facilities and ward swim-plex). Not to mention that Hearst would no longer be so scenic after a pool is built, either.

The concept of having an indoor and outdoor acquatic center in the heart of Ward 3's "town center" is quite appealing. How do we go for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

The site isn't in the woods by the stream bed, but rather on the level grassy expanse just SW of the Wilson pool entrance. Not the most scenic spot in the world, but very central, accessible (by Metro, bus and lots of parking) and efficient (opportunity for shared facilities and ward swim-plex). Not to mention that Hearst would no longer be so scenic after a pool is built, either.

The concept of having an indoor and outdoor acquatic center in the heart of Ward 3's "town center" is quite appealing. How do we go for it?

According to the DC tax assessments database, that property, Square 1772 lot 800, is owned by the federal government.

You can see the property lines in the DC Atlas: http://atlasplus.dcgis.dc.gov/

Set the "Base Map and Imagery" for "DC Property Basemap."

It might be a tight fit anyway. You'll see that 3911 Albemarle angles toward Fort Drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

Not so. DC apparently never really asked. There was zero correspondence with NPS produced in response to a FOIA request.

Wow. That's shocking to me, as shocking as DC leaving federal housing funds on the table. How lazy and complicit are we?
I wonder if having it in Ft. Reno would basically turn it into a Deal/Wilson after school hangout pool? Before I get slammed, I am just saying that is something to consider. I am envisioning a 'community pool' as a mixed use all ages space, and having it in such proximity to Deal and Wilson might de facto block it off as a tween/teen hangout for part of the day in late spring and early fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

The site isn't in the woods by the stream bed, but rather on the level grassy expanse just SW of the Wilson pool entrance. Not the most scenic spot in the world, but very central, accessible (by Metro, bus and lots of parking) and efficient (opportunity for shared facilities and ward swim-plex). Not to mention that Hearst would no longer be so scenic after a pool is built, either.

I think the Hearst pool could be scenic. How about two pools? This busy one and a sleepier Hearst pool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fort Reno area would be a perfect, centrally-located, transit accessible spot for a pool. If dealing with the National Park Service is too much of a hassle, there is a great spot for an outdoor pool, just immediately southwest of the entrance to the Wilson aquatic center along Fort Drive. It's on DC-owned land, contiguous to a facility already managed by DPR. The outdoor pool could share changing rooms and some mechanical infrastructure with the indoor pool and there could certainly be some staff efficiencies, particularly the summer. The result could be a true all-season ward 3 swimming facility.

good idea. Is it a nice spot, scenic such as the Hearst field? I can't visualize the space by Wilson pool you are speaking of. There is a lot of overgrown foliage by Wilson Aquatic center across from Whole Foods. That area?

Most of the DC pools aren't really "scenic" are they? I feel like this should not really be a qualifier as to where to build a pool, though at the same time I would argue for keeping Hearst as the nice moderately scenic place in an actual residential neighborhood that it currently is. I think that's lost in a lot of these discussions. Many DC pools are already in more commercial areas, which I think is where much of the pushback is coming from. As much as the advocates say they want a pool they can walk to, I have to wonder if someone where placing it across the street from your front yard, would you be as cavalier?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spot next to the Wilson Aquatic Center is the head of Soapstone Creek. If you think the manufactured hydrology issues at Hearst are real then there is no way you would honestly suggest placing anything on that location where there is a real hydrology issue.

And Ft. Reno has already been rejected by NPS.

The site isn't in the woods by the stream bed, but rather on the level grassy expanse just SW of the Wilson pool entrance. Not the most scenic spot in the world, but very central, accessible (by Metro, bus and lots of parking) and efficient (opportunity for shared facilities and ward swim-plex). Not to mention that Hearst would no longer be so scenic after a pool is built, either.

I think the Hearst pool could be scenic. How about two pools? This busy one and a sleepier Hearst pool?

That would be wasteful. If you are looking to have essentially a neighborhood 'private' pool at Hearst, there are already several in the immediate vicinity!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fort Reno area would be a perfect, centrally-located, transit accessible spot for a pool. If dealing with the National Park Service is too much of a hassle, there is a great spot for an outdoor pool, just immediately southwest of the entrance to the Wilson aquatic center along Fort Drive. It's on DC-owned land, contiguous to a facility already managed by DPR. The outdoor pool could share changing rooms and some mechanical infrastructure with the indoor pool and there could certainly be some staff efficiencies, particularly the summer. The result could be a true all-season ward 3 swimming facility.

good idea. Is it a nice spot, scenic such as the Hearst field? I can't visualize the space by Wilson pool you are speaking of. There is a lot of overgrown foliage by Wilson Aquatic center across from Whole Foods. That area?

Most of the DC pools aren't really "scenic" are they? I feel like this should not really be a qualifier as to where to build a pool, though at the same time I would argue for keeping Hearst as the nice moderately scenic place in an actual residential neighborhood that it currently is. I think that's lost in a lot of these discussions. Many DC pools are already in more commercial areas, which I think is where much of the pushback is coming from. As much as the advocates say they want a pool they can walk to, I have to wonder if someone where placing it across the street from your front yard, would you be as cavalier?

A Hearst pool would be "scenic" in the sense that Roslyn is scenic. The view from the inside looking out is a lot better than the view from the outside looking in!

[Anonymous]

With our modern thoughtful library designs I'm not sure why an outdoor pool couldn't be scenic. There are beautiful hotel pools,w hy not beautiful city pools?

[Anonymous]

I would love to live across the street from a pool.

Why is this seen as a negative?

[Anonymous]

I don't have an objection to a pool at Hearst if they build it where the tennis courts are now. I don't want it on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With our modern thoughtful library designs I'm not sure why an outdoor pool couldn't be scenic. There are beautiful hotel pools,w hy not beautiful city pools?

Is this a joke? Have you seen the monstrosity they built in Tenleytown? That library is hideous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to live across the street from a pool.

Why is this seen as a negative?

DC does a poor job maintaining its facilities and the pools it has. There is often trash around, the trash cans don't get emptied with any regularity, they don't keep the facilities clean and working well, if there are a hundred people at a pool and it is literally across the street from your house, which is would be for some people who live on Quebec/35/36th if they site it on the tennis courts, there will be 50+ cars parked around your house and the noise from all the people in the pool all day long. Because despite people saying they will walk to the "neighborhood pool," it has not been my experience that people end up walking even if they can. Maybe they have good intentions of doing so, but then they look at the bags of towels, sun screen, pool toys, snacks, drinks, changes of clothes etc., that they want to bring and decide it's easier to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With our modern thoughtful library designs I'm not sure why an outdoor pool couldn't be scenic. There are beautiful hotel pools,w hy not beautiful city pools?

Is this a joke? Have you seen the monstrosity they built in Tenleytown? That library is hideous.

I don't hate it. Tenleytown in general is hideous (and I live there). There is a LOT of wasted space in the atrium, true. Personally, if we want things to be less hideous we could start by Mary Cheh and our ANC organizing the local businesses to contribute to scrape off the disgraceful amount of gum from the sidewalks (the business community pooled their resources to hire a machine and do this with success in Mt. Pleasant) and put in some flower baskets. The new library is not the problem for me. The grime and filth are. Also, how about some landscaping on all those city owned grassy medians? C'mon local pols. Aesthetics are part of quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to live across the street from a pool.

Why is this seen as a negative?

DC does a poor job maintaining its facilities and the pools it has. There is often trash around, the trash cans don't get emptied with any regularity, they don't keep the facilities clean and working well, if there are a hundred people at a pool and it is literally across the street from your house, which is would be for some people who live on Quebec/35/36th if they site it on the tennis courts, there will be 50+ cars parked around your house and the noise from all the people in the pool all day long. Because despite people saying they will walk to the "neighborhood pool," it has not been my experience that people end up walking even if they can. Maybe they have good intentions of doing so, but then they look at the bags of towels, sun screen, pool toys, snacks, drinks, changes of clothes etc., that they want to bring and decide it's easier to drive.

We live in a city and according to people who post here, there are hordes of people using Hearst all the time, so the people and cars shouldn't be anything different than current usage.

The rest, meh. I would volunteer to live across from a pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With our modern thoughtful library designs I'm not sure why an outdoor pool couldn't be scenic. There are beautiful hotel pools,w hy not beautiful city pools?

Is this a joke? Have you seen the monstrosity they built in Tenleytown? That library is hideous.

I don't hate it. Tenleytown in general is hideous (and I live there). There is a LOT of wasted space in the atrium, true. Personally, if we want things to be less hideous we could start by Mary Cheh and our ANC organizing the local businesses to contribute to scrape off the disgraceful amount of gum from the sidewalks (the business community pooled their resources to hire a machine and do this with success in Mt. Pleasant) and put in some flower baskets. The new library is not the problem for me. The grime and filth are. Also, how about some landscaping on all those city owned grassy medians? C'mon local pols. Aesthetics are part of quality of life.

The Tenleytown Main Street has a Clean Team that is doing just as you suggest. Maybe you aren't paying attention.