Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?

No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.

I didn't realize that the proposed Hearst pool really is intended just to be a neighborhood pool for North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills West, Van Ness or whatever that area is called. The pool has been touted as a recreational facility for Ward 3, which among DC wards arguably is deprived for not having a public outdoor pool in the ward. If that's the case, and given that not everyone lives within walking distance or can drive, isn't it logical to locate a ward-wide resource somewhat centrally in the ward, ideally near other concentrations of activity and especially near a a major public transportation node? Ward 3 has five Metro stops, and Fort Reno is centrally located within a short distance of one of the middle ones, and also adjacent to the District's largest middle and high schools. Fort Reno is adjacent to the crossing of two of the ward's two major axes, the Wisconsin and Nebraska corridors.

Finally, a Metro-accessible pool allows other users from outside the ward elsewhere in the District to reach the pool more easily. The pool, after all, is a resource that should belong to all District residents.

The talk of a "Ward 3 pool" just isn't persuasive. Ward boundaries are just imaginary lines on a map, and they move. Chevy Chase is Ward 4 but used to be Ward 3, and Palisades is Ward 3 but used to Ward 2. Would a pool at Chevy Chase not serve Ward 3 because it's in Ward 4? Does a pool at Hearst serve people in Palisades better than pools at Jelleff or Volta simply because they don't have to cross a ward boundary to get there? It's not like we have passport controls between the wards.

The DPR Master Facilities Plan called for every DC resident to be within one mile of an outdoor pool. For most residents west of Rock Creek that is not currently the case. The plan pointed out that two new pools, one near Ward Circle and one near Chevy Chase, would put almost the entire area within a one-mile radius. A pool at Hearst does not accomplish that; rather it splits the area into smaller northern and southern zones that are still not served.

Hearst is less than a mile from Ward Circle. I have no idea what you are talking about. A pool at Hearst totally helps address the pool void west of Rock Creek regardless of ward boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that pool will be built despite what Mary Cheh and her developer do to fix the decision. I didn't know anything about her until this issue erupted and I look forward to seeing her defeated in the next election.

What do any developers have to do with a pool at Hearst? if it moves forward, DPR or DGS will out out an RFP for a construction firm to build what has been designed. There is no developer involvement unless you want to combine it with the homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.

Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?

No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.

I didn't realize that the proposed Hearst pool really is intended just to be a neighborhood pool for North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills West, Van Ness or whatever that area is called. The pool has been touted as a recreational facility for Ward 3, which among DC wards arguably is deprived for not having a public outdoor pool in the ward. If that's the case, and given that not everyone lives within walking distance or can drive, isn't it logical to locate a ward-wide resource somewhat centrally in the ward, ideally near other concentrations of activity and especially near a a major public transportation node? Ward 3 has five Metro stops, and Fort Reno is centrally located within a short distance of one of the middle ones, and also adjacent to the District's largest middle and high schools. Fort Reno is adjacent to the crossing of two of the ward's two major axes, the Wisconsin and Nebraska corridors.

Finally, a Metro-accessible pool allows other users from outside the ward elsewhere in the District to reach the pool more easily. The pool, after all, is a resource that should belong to all District residents.

The talk of a "Ward 3 pool" just isn't persuasive. Ward boundaries are just imaginary lines on a map, and they move. Chevy Chase is Ward 4 but used to be Ward 3, and Palisades is Ward 3 but used to Ward 2. Would a pool at Chevy Chase not serve Ward 3 because it's in Ward 4? Does a pool at Hearst serve people in Palisades better than pools at Jelleff or Volta simply because they don't have to cross a ward boundary to get there? It's not like we have passport controls between the wards.

The DPR Master Facilities Plan called for every DC resident to be within one mile of an outdoor pool. For most residents west of Rock Creek that is not currently the case. The plan pointed out that two new pools, one near Ward Circle and one near Chevy Chase, would put almost the entire area within a one-mile radius. A pool at Hearst does not accomplish that; rather it splits the area into smaller northern and southern zones that are still not served.

Hearst is less than a mile from Ward Circle. I have no idea what you are talking about. A pool at Hearst totally helps address the pool void west of Rock Creek regardless of ward boundaries.

Actually, it's more. 1.2 miles is the nearest Google route, all by or along streets, as there's no 'as the crow flies' trail. The point is, DPR wanted to locate pools pretty centrally, certainly near some the largest concentrations of families with children (and that doesn't get any denser than AU Park). Of course, a Fort Reno location is between AU Park and Chevy Chase, and really convenient for Metro, buses and parking.

[Anonymous]

Doubtful that even if Hearst park remains the designated site for a pool, that a pool will be built there. DGS is really under the gun for the hideous cost overruns with the Duke Ellington Palace in Georgetown. That project also has had the effect of putting cost pressure on fully funding school renovation projects, even those already in the pipeline. If it's a funding decision between building an outdoor pool in Ward 3 (in a location that a lot or residents don't even want) or funding a renovation of John Eaton, which one do you think Cheh will choose. If it's a choice between funding projects in Ward 7 versus the Ward 3 pool, which one do you think the mayor will choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful that even if Hearst park remains the designated site for a pool, that a pool will be built there. DGS is really under the gun for the hideous cost overruns with the Duke Ellington Palace in Georgetown. That project also has had the effect of putting cost pressure on fully funding school renovation projects, even those already in the pipeline. If it's a funding decision between building an outdoor pool in Ward 3 (in a location that a lot or residents don't even want) or funding a renovation of John Eaton, which one do you think Cheh will choose. If it's a choice between funding projects in Ward 7 versus the Ward 3 pool, which one do you think the mayor will choose.

You have no idea what you are talking about or how the city budget process works or the politics behind it.

The money is in the budget for a Ward 3 pool so there is not some false choice between building the pool and renovating Eaton which is also funded.

DC has been modernizing schools and recreation facilities both citywide and in Ward 3 and there is no reason that won't be the case going forward particularly since Mary Cheh is interested in seeing the pool build and Eaton modernized.

Perhaps posts like yours will scare some people but it is not an informed post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful that even if Hearst park remains the designated site for a pool, that a pool will be built there. DGS is really under the gun for the hideous cost overruns with the Duke Ellington Palace in Georgetown. That project also has had the effect of putting cost pressure on fully funding school renovation projects, even those already in the pipeline. If it's a funding decision between building an outdoor pool in Ward 3 (in a location that a lot or residents don't even want) or funding a renovation of John Eaton, which one do you think Cheh will choose. If it's a choice between funding projects in Ward 7 versus the Ward 3 pool, which one do you think the mayor will choose.

You have no idea what you are talking about or how the city budget process works or the politics behind it.

The money is in the budget for a Ward 3 pool so there is not some false choice between building the pool and renovating Eaton which is also funded.

DC has been modernizing schools and recreation facilities both citywide and in Ward 3 and there is no reason that won't be the case going forward particularly since Mary Cheh is interested in seeing the pool build and Eaton modernized.

Perhaps posts like yours will scare some people but it is not an informed post.

You beat me to it. Two different budget line items and nothing but a fear-mongering post amongst uninformed NIMBYs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it's more. 1.2 miles is the nearest Google route, all by or along streets, as there's no 'as the crow flies' trail. The point is, DPR wanted to locate pools pretty centrally, certainly near some the largest concentrations of families with children (and that doesn't get any denser than AU Park). Of course, a Fort Reno location is between AU Park and Chevy Chase, and really convenient for Metro, buses and parking.

DPR wouldn't be looking for a Google route between two locations to serve its constituency. Bottom line, there is no proposal for a pool at Ft Reno, so it is a straw man argument.The National Park Service isn't in a position to support a wild deflection idea at this late stage. The proposal is for a pool at Hearst, which is close enough to Ft Reno and Ward Circle to check the box. People have supported this proposal in pretty convincing numbers, despite the claims of the 120 or whatever people (not households, that would cut the number almost in half) who are being selfish and parochial in opposing a public facility at a public park with public money that all of us contribute to.

Just because you might live closer to the park doesn't give you more weight over determining how it is programed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it's more. 1.2 miles is the nearest Google route, all by or along streets, as there's no 'as the crow flies' trail. The point is, DPR wanted to locate pools pretty centrally, certainly near some the largest concentrations of families with children (and that doesn't get any denser than AU Park). Of course, a Fort Reno location is between AU Park and Chevy Chase, and really convenient for Metro, buses and parking.

DPR wouldn't be looking for a Google route between two locations to serve its constituency. Bottom line, there is no proposal for a pool at Ft Reno, so it is a straw man argument.The National Park Service isn't in a position to support a wild deflection idea at this late stage. The proposal is for a pool at Hearst, which is close enough to Ft Reno and Ward Circle to check the box. People have supported this proposal in pretty convincing numbers, despite the claims of the 120 or whatever people (not households, that would cut the number almost in half) who are being selfish and parochial in opposing a public facility at a public park with public money that all of us contribute to.

Just because you might live closer to the park doesn't give you more weight over determining how it is programed.

"At this late stage"? It's clear that the D.C. Government never explored Fort Reno with the Park Service. The FOIA request made that clear. It also confirmed that there were no alternative sites considered at all and no feasibility and impact studies (including no hydrology assessment at Hearst). "Late stage " or not, the lack of studies will likely undermine, if not prove fatal to, building at the Hearst site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doubtful that even if Hearst park remains the designated site for a pool, that a pool will be built there. DGS is really under the gun for the hideous cost overruns with the Duke Ellington Palace in Georgetown. That project also has had the effect of putting cost pressure on fully funding school renovation projects, even those already in the pipeline. If it's a funding decision between building an outdoor pool in Ward 3 (in a location that a lot or residents don't even want) or funding a renovation of John Eaton, which one do you think Cheh will choose. If it's a choice between funding projects in Ward 7 versus the Ward 3 pool, which one do you think the mayor will choose.

You have no idea what you are talking about or how the city budget process works or the politics behind it.

The money is in the budget for a Ward 3 pool so there is not some false choice between building the pool and renovating Eaton which is also funded.

DC has been modernizing schools and recreation facilities both citywide and in Ward 3 and there is no reason that won't be the case going forward particularly since Mary Cheh is interested in seeing the pool build and Eaton modernized.

Perhaps posts like yours will scare some people but it is not an informed post.

What's been "budgeted" for Eaton is Onat about 20 or 25 percent of other recent elementary school renovations in Ward 3. It's a bit of a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it's more. 1.2 miles is the nearest Google route, all by or along streets, as there's no 'as the crow flies' trail. The point is, DPR wanted to locate pools pretty centrally, certainly near some the largest concentrations of families with children (and that doesn't get any denser than AU Park). Of course, a Fort Reno location is between AU Park and Chevy Chase, and really convenient for Metro, buses and parking.

DPR wouldn't be looking for a Google route between two locations to serve its constituency. Bottom line, there is no proposal for a pool at Ft Reno, so it is a straw man argument.The National Park Service isn't in a position to support a wild deflection idea at this late stage. The proposal is for a pool at Hearst, which is close enough to Ft Reno and Ward Circle to check the box. People have supported this proposal in pretty convincing numbers, despite the claims of the 120 or whatever people (not households, that would cut the number almost in half) who are being selfish and parochial in opposing a public facility at a public park with public money that all of us contribute to.

Just because you might live closer to the park doesn't give you more weight over determining how it is programed.

"At this late stage"? It's clear that the D.C. Government never explored Fort Reno with the Park Service. The FOIA request made that clear. It also confirmed that there were no alternative sites considered at all and no feasibility and impact studies (including no hydrology assessment at Hearst). "Late stage " or not, the lack of studies will likely undermine, if not prove fatal to, building at the Hearst site.

Who cares. You are just throwing up road blocks to something that the community has been begging for for decades. So ultimately YOU will be making this more expensive for the city to implement. Pretty rich given you are complaining about how expensive things are for the District.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, it's more. 1.2 miles is the nearest Google route, all by or along streets, as there's no 'as the crow flies' trail. The point is, DPR wanted to locate pools pretty centrally, certainly near some the largest concentrations of families with children (and that doesn't get any denser than AU Park). Of course, a Fort Reno location is between AU Park and Chevy Chase, and really convenient for Metro, buses and parking.

DPR wouldn't be looking for a Google route between two locations to serve its constituency. Bottom line, there is no proposal for a pool at Ft Reno, so it is a straw man argument.The National Park Service isn't in a position to support a wild deflection idea at this late stage. The proposal is for a pool at Hearst, which is close enough to Ft Reno and Ward Circle to check the box. People have supported this proposal in pretty convincing numbers, despite the claims of the 120 or whatever people (not households, that would cut the number almost in half) who are being selfish and parochial in opposing a public facility at a public park with public money that all of us contribute to.

Just because you might live closer to the park doesn't give you more weight over determining how it is programed.

"At this late stage"? It's clear that the D.C. Government never explored Fort Reno with the Park Service. The FOIA request made that clear. It also confirmed that there were no alternative sites considered at all and no feasibility and impact studies (including no hydrology assessment at Hearst). "Late stage " or not, the lack of studies will likely undermine, if not prove fatal to, building at the Hearst site.

I don't care if they explored Ft Reno and don't even understand why it matters. Hearst is a great location for a pool and even in a best case scenario a much simpler and faster location on which a pool can be built.

BTW FOIA requests are not perfect - if you don't cast the right net you might never turn up what you are looking for but again this is irrelevant - Hearst is a great location for a pool and someone (Cheh???) needs to stand up to the immediate neighbors and move this project forward.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't mind a pool per se at Hearst but what I fear is a concrete hole inside ugly cyclone fencing, marring what is a pretty park. It will be even worse from fall to spring when the leaves are off the trees and D.C. lights the complex up at night like a maximum security lock-up in Southeast. DGS just knows one speed....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind a pool per se at Hearst but what I fear is a concrete hole inside ugly cyclone fencing, marring what is a pretty park. It will be even worse from fall to spring when the leaves are off the trees and D.C. lights the complex up at night like a maximum security lock-up in Southeast. DGS just knows one speed....

OMG you are nuts and the last person whose concerns this process should be bogged down by.

Comparing an outdoor pool to a maximum security prison? Really?

https://razorwirewomen.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/high-school-in-joburg.jpg

The park is there to serve the public not please the aesthetic concerns of crazy neighbors.

Who won't be able to see the pool anyhow because it is below the grade of Quebec Street and behind a fairly thick stand of trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awesome news! We participated in some of the community surveys, and would LOVE an outdoor park in that space. And I think the "community" in this case is the community of residents of Washington DC, all of whom are entitled to use the city's pools. Easy bus access via H buses and the 96/X3/30 buses on Wisconsin.

I'd also like to see a dog park -- there are a ton of people who run their dogs off-leash in the park, and it's a nuisance, especially when they do it just at the same time kids are on their way to school. So it would be great to see a fenced-in safe area for dog-owners.

I'd like to see a climbing wall also. Seriously, the problem with building a pool...or a dog park...or anything else at Hearst is that some other major feature has to go in this smallish D.C. park. Space is finite. The full-sized playing field, the tennis courts, the beautiful shady oak canopy -- one or probably several will be significantly impacted by constructing other major facilities. The problem is that pool advocates and even the DC government have not been very transparent about the hard trade-offs involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind a pool per se at Hearst but what I fear is a concrete hole inside ugly cyclone fencing, marring what is a pretty park. It will be even worse from fall to spring when the leaves are off the trees and D.C. lights the complex up at night like a maximum security lock-up in Southeast. DGS just knows one speed....

OMG you are nuts and the last person whose concerns this process should be bogged down by.

Comparing an outdoor pool to a maximum security prison? Really?

https://razorwirewomen.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/high-school-in-joburg.jpg

The park is there to serve the public not please the aesthetic concerns of crazy neighbors.

Who won't be able to see the pool anyhow because it is below the grade of Quebec Street and behind a fairly thick stand of trees.

Perhaps a building reading comprehension program center at Hearst would be more useful than a pool.