Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

The field at Hearst is actually much larger than a regulation field. If the actual field were marked off, you would see how a pool can fit there without compromising on a regulation pitch.

Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The field at Hearst is actually much larger than a regulation field. If the actual field were marked off, you would see how a pool can fit there without compromising on a regulation pitch.

Just saying.

There is no such thing as a "regulation" soccer field, no more than there is a "regulation" baseball outfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Turtle Park is not several times larger than Hearst - why do the neighbors keep repeating things that are demonstrably untrue?

According to the DC Atlas, Hearst is square 1905, lot 802, 191,668 square feet.

Friendship is square 1560 lot 805, 245,221 square feet. So Turtle Park is somewhat larger. I think two things make people perceive Hearst as smaller: first, the topography is such that a lot of land is unusable. Second, Turtle Park has three fields laid out compared to one at Hearst. People think of fields as being all the same size even though they vary tremendously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Turtle Park is not several times larger than Hearst - why do the neighbors keep repeating things that are demonstrably untrue?

According to the DC Atlas, Hearst is square 1905, lot 802, 191,668 square feet.

Friendship is square 1560 lot 805, 245,221 square feet. So Turtle Park is somewhat larger. I think two things make people perceive Hearst as smaller: first, the topography is such that a lot of land is unusable. Second, Turtle Park has three fields laid out compared to one at Hearst. People think of fields as being all the same size even though they vary tremendously.

Thanks for looking this up - there is also some unusable land at Turtle Park - hills on the south and and east sides and perhaps some of the wooded area as well.

In any case at most Turtle Park is about 25% bigger and has 2 tennis courts, a playground, a basketball court, a rec center and a large grass field that depending on the configuration hosts between 2 and 4 baseball games.

But yeah Hearst is the intensely used park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The field at Hearst is actually much larger than a regulation field. If the actual field were marked off, you would see how a pool can fit there without compromising on a regulation pitch.

Just saying.

There is no such thing as a "regulation" soccer field, no more than there is a "regulation" baseball outfield.

Correct, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_pitch#Pitch_boundary

[Anonymous]

Great, then it doesn't matter what size the field is.

[Anonymous]

Won't there be a Wegman's Town Center almost across the street from Hearst? If they don't get their own pool, that could be a thousand people wanting to go to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great, then it doesn't matter what size the field is.

As a soccer player and parent this is one of the things that has frustrated me about this process. Looking at the sketches, it's obvious that whoever drew them didn't know what a soccer field is supposed to look like, and didn't care. The size -- and just as importantly, the shape -- matters a lot. And no, it's not the same as an American football field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won't there be a Wegman's Town Center almost across the street from Hearst? If they don't get their own pool, that could be a thousand people wanting to go to Hearst.

And lots of people looking for RPP on the streets around Hearst, rather than pay $500/month to rent a parking space in the Wegmansplex.

[Anonymous]

There are already thousands of people who want to use a pool at Hearst. It is also likely the Wegmans development will have its own pool for residents.

[Anonymous]

Why spend all this money and wage a fight for a pool that, together with the bathhouse, will fit inside the dimensions of a single tennis court? Like a kiddie pool for more than just kiddies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, then it doesn't matter what size the field is.

As a soccer player and parent this is one of the things that has frustrated me about this process. Looking at the sketches, it's obvious that whoever drew them didn't know what a soccer field is supposed to look like, and didn't care. The size -- and just as importantly, the shape -- matters a lot. And no, it's not the same as an American football field.

The sketches are meant to be indicative, to force a decision now. There will be time figure out the exact details later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, then it doesn't matter what size the field is.

As a soccer player and parent this is one of the things that has frustrated me about this process. Looking at the sketches, it's obvious that whoever drew them didn't know what a soccer field is supposed to look like, and didn't care. The size -- and just as importantly, the shape -- matters a lot. And no, it's not the same as an American football field.

The sketches are meant to be indicative, to force a decision now. There will be time figure out the exact details later.

Details matter.

Imagine a sketch where there is ample parking shown, but the parking spaces are all drawn as six feet long. Would you say, "yeah, we can go ahead with that"? Or would you say "come back with the parking spaces drawn actual size and then we'll talk" ? And would you feel that maybe they were trying to pull a fast one? The sketches I saw all had the interior lines of the soccer fields drawn at a fraction of their actual size, to make them look bigger than they actually are. If the only way the sketch works is with the details artificially shrunk, then there's a problem with the plan. That's not a detail to be hammered out.

Based on their past performance, I have no faith in the city's ability to get those details right. DGS has a pretty bad track record of ignoring input and just building whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great, then it doesn't matter what size the field is.

As a soccer player and parent this is one of the things that has frustrated me about this process. Looking at the sketches, it's obvious that whoever drew them didn't know what a soccer field is supposed to look like, and didn't care. The size -- and just as importantly, the shape -- matters a lot. And no, it's not the same as an American football field.

The sketches are meant to be indicative, to force a decision now. There will be time figure out the exact details later.

Details matter.

Imagine a sketch where there is ample parking shown, but the parking spaces are all drawn as six feet long. Would you say, "yeah, we can go ahead with that"? Or would you say "come back with the parking spaces drawn actual size and then we'll talk" ? And would you feel that maybe they were trying to pull a fast one? The sketches I saw all had the interior lines of the soccer fields drawn at a fraction of their actual size, to make them look bigger than they actually are. If the only way the sketch works is with the details artificially shrunk, then there's a problem with the plan. That's not a detail to be hammered out.

Based on their past performance, I have no faith in the city's ability to get those details right. DGS has a pretty bad track record of ignoring input and just building whatever.

Nattering nabobs of NIMBYism.

Just start building the pool already! Let's trust the DC experts to work out the details.

[Anonymous]

The entire Hearst Field is used for under-12 soccer every Saturday, Spring and Fall.