Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

I actually would like to see the pace of ALL the development in the area slow. Homeless shelter, Wegmans complex, pool, Sidwell expansion. It's a LOT at once. Wisconsin Ave doesn't have to develop like Columbia Heights did, which has half the stores in the buildings they built sitting empty, and whose public spaces aren't properly maintained. Yes, do it right. Do it slowly is fine. And show that you can take care of what we have now. If streets, sidewalks and parks are not properly maintained now in Tenleytown/CP (I have never in the winter ONCE seen the city shovel the public sidewalks by their strips of parks) why would a pool get maintenance. Just cool it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually would like to see the pace of ALL the development in the area slow. Homeless shelter, Wegmans complex, pool, Sidwell expansion. It's a LOT at once. Wisconsin Ave doesn't have to develop like Columbia Heights did, which has half the stores in the buildings they built sitting empty, and whose public spaces aren't properly maintained. Yes, do it right. Do it slowly is fine. And show that you can take care of what we have now. If streets, sidewalks and parks are not properly maintained now in Tenleytown/CP (I have never in the winter ONCE seen the city shovel the public sidewalks by their strips of parks) why would a pool get maintenance. Just cool it.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Luckily for people with common sense or with those who know a bit more what is going on in both the neighborhood and the city your post is full of non-sense.

Wisconsin Avenue has had just about the least change of any part of the city and it shows as many businesses are losing ground to more vibrant and progressive parts of the city. Hopefully the Fannie Mae and 4000 Wisconsin re-developments will catalyze those areas similarly to how the Cathedral Heights redevelopment has revitalized an area that similarly was a dead zone for decades.

And I have no idea what you are talking about in Columbia Heights which is booming right now nor do I know what public spaces you are referring too.

Regardless a new swimming pool is not development by any metric I'm aware of.

BTW the city has actually been doing a lot in Ward 3 when it comes to replacing sidewalks and planting new trees.

And the uncleared sidewalks you are referring to are adjacent to NPS land.

[Anonymous]

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually would like to see the pace of ALL the development in the area slow. Homeless shelter, Wegmans complex, pool, Sidwell expansion. It's a LOT at once. Wisconsin Ave doesn't have to develop like Columbia Heights did, which has half the stores in the buildings they built sitting empty, and whose public spaces aren't properly maintained. Yes, do it right. Do it slowly is fine. And show that you can take care of what we have now. If streets, sidewalks and parks are not properly maintained now in Tenleytown/CP (I have never in the winter ONCE seen the city shovel the public sidewalks by their strips of parks) why would a pool get maintenance. Just cool it.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Luckily for people with common sense or with those who know a bit more what is going on in both the neighborhood and the city your post is full of non-sense.

Wisconsin Avenue has had just about the least change of any part of the city and it shows as many businesses are losing ground to more vibrant and progressive parts of the city. Hopefully the Fannie Mae and 4000 Wisconsin re-developments will catalyze those areas similarly to how the Cathedral Heights redevelopment has revitalized an area that similarly was a dead zone for decades.

And I have no idea what you are talking about in Columbia Heights which is booming right now nor do I know what public spaces you are referring too.

Regardless a new swimming pool is not development by any metric I'm aware of.

BTW the city has actually been doing a lot in Ward 3 when it comes to replacing sidewalks and planting new trees.

And the uncleared sidewalks you are referring to are adjacent to NPS land.

EEe
Cathedral Commons?!

Should be called “Concrete Commons.” That POS is so cheaply built that after just two or three years the taller building is already looking tired and shabby. Other recent projects in the area like Park Van Ness make Concrete Commons look shoddily built by comparison. The Fannie/Wegmans evelopmemt could send Giant/CC down the road of dollar store and tanning salons. (The high rise homeless shelter to be built across the street won’t help either.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually would like to see the pace of ALL the development in the area slow. Homeless shelter, Wegmans complex, pool, Sidwell expansion. It's a LOT at once. Wisconsin Ave doesn't have to develop like Columbia Heights did, which has half the stores in the buildings they built sitting empty, and whose public spaces aren't properly maintained. Yes, do it right. Do it slowly is fine. And show that you can take care of what we have now. If streets, sidewalks and parks are not properly maintained now in Tenleytown/CP (I have never in the winter ONCE seen the city shovel the public sidewalks by their strips of parks) why would a pool get maintenance. Just cool it.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Luckily for people with common sense or with those who know a bit more what is going on in both the neighborhood and the city your post is full of non-sense.

Wisconsin Avenue has had just about the least change of any part of the city and it shows as many businesses are losing ground to more vibrant and progressive parts of the city. Hopefully the Fannie Mae and 4000 Wisconsin re-developments will catalyze those areas similarly to how the Cathedral Heights redevelopment has revitalized an area that similarly was a dead zone for decades.

And I have no idea what you are talking about in Columbia Heights which is booming right now nor do I know what public spaces you are referring too.

Regardless a new swimming pool is not development by any metric I'm aware of.

BTW the city has actually been doing a lot in Ward 3 when it comes to replacing sidewalks and planting new trees.

And the uncleared sidewalks you are referring to are adjacent to NPS land.

EEe
Cathedral Commons?!

Should be called “Concrete Commons.” That POS is so cheaply built that after just two or three years the taller building is already looking tired and shabby. Other recent projects in the area like Park Van Ness make Concrete Commons look shoddily built by comparison. The Fannie/Wegmans evelopmemt could send Giant/CC down the road of dollar store and tanning salons. (The high rise homeless shelter to be built across the street won’t help either.)

Yet the restaurants and grocery store are usually jammed with people.

So tell me why it matters and what it has to do with whether we should get a pool in the neighborhood or not.

Also someone (I assume it is one person) keeps repeating the claim that the buildings look cheap and are falling apart. I was just there this weekend and while the architecture is nothing to marvel at I didn't see anything that looked shabby or in decay so this is just another baseless and odd CP nutjob talking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

It's awfully unfair for you to be accusing others of making things up when you don't have your facts straight.

It is a little complicated to talk about the current use of the field because there isn't really any such thing as "the field." DPR doesn't maintain lines or goals, it's just a large grassy (or "grassy") patch that people can divide up as they see fit. The flat area is about 65 by 105 yards. If you look on Google Maps right now the aerial photo shows it divided into three third grade fields, each 35x50 yards. This season it's being used for high school and second grade, high school is a single field 60x105, second grade is four fields each 30x40.

Where the proposals have shown dimensions the field is never larger than 100x50 yards, and often about three quarters that size. None of the configurations above would fit on a 100x50 field. This is what the folks at DPR don't seem to get, that the dimensions matter, even though their business is nominally recreation. To them, a soccer field is a soccer field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

It's awfully unfair for you to be accusing others of making things up when you don't have your facts straight.

It is a little complicated to talk about the current use of the field because there isn't really any such thing as "the field." DPR doesn't maintain lines or goals, it's just a large grassy (or "grassy") patch that people can divide up as they see fit. The flat area is about 65 by 105 yards. If you look on Google Maps right now the aerial photo shows it divided into three third grade fields, each 35x50 yards. This season it's being used for high school and second grade, high school is a single field 60x105, second grade is four fields each 30x40.

Where the proposals have shown dimensions the field is never larger than 100x50 yards, and often about three quarters that size. None of the configurations above would fit on a 100x50 field. This is what the folks at DPR don't seem to get, that the dimensions matter, even though their business is nominally recreation. To them, a soccer field is a soccer field.

Yet as you just pointed out the field isn't even being used in the manner it is laid out for yet opponents of change are fighting any change in how the field is laid out.

So what matters - being able to get the games in at a particular site or having a field of some particular dimension?

Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options. Apparently the incredible demand for a full time field that the neighbors keep going on and on about is not really such an incredible demand.

In any case if the neighbors are so concerned about Stoddert and advocating for its interests (and in a sense they should be because it is the only time anyone actually uses the park) then the simply position they should take is to be adamant that the pool simply go where the tennis courts are and leave the soccer field alone.

Barely anyone will notice as the tennis courts are lightly used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options.

Now you're really showing your ignorance. Every DPR field in the area where "rectangular" field sports are allowed is used heavily. Stoddert in particular is squeezed by the city, they get about one fifth as much field time per player as the DPR average. Stoddert is the only youth sports organization that has to spend heavily to rent fields, they spend over $300,000 a year on rentals. They wouldn't be spending that money if they had "many other options."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

BUT THE MAJORITY OF DGS ALTERNATIVES DO.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

WITHOUT DIMENSIONS, WHICH DGS DISINGENUOUSLY WITHHELD, THE SIZE OF THE SWIMMING POOL COMPLEX IS OBFUSCATED

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

WHAAT IS THE BASIS FOR THIS STATEMENT AND WHY SHOULD IT MATTER IN ANY CASE?

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

EVEN IF TRUE, THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY CUT IN HALF HEARST’S FIELD CAPACITY FOR SOCCER GAMES WHICH IS A BIG IMPACT, CONSIDERING THE SHORTAGE OF PLAYING FIELDS.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

PLEASE WHAT ARE THE FACTS? YOU MIGHT START WITH REAL DATA, INCLUDING TRUE DIMENSIONS, SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN BETTER EVALUATE THE “PLANS” AND ASSESS THEIR TRUE IMPACT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options.

Now you're really showing your ignorance. Every DPR field in the area where "rectangular" field sports are allowed is used heavily. Stoddert in particular is squeezed by the city, they get about one fifth as much field time per player as the DPR average. Stoddert is the only youth sports organization that has to spend heavily to rent fields, they spend over $300,000 a year on rentals. They wouldn't be spending that money if they had "many other options."

Clearly there is not enough field space on spring and fall weekends.

But the anti pool crowd keeps telling us that the field use at Hearst is unique to Hearst and the field has to be that exact same size or there will be some dramatic programmatic impact to Hearst.

Clearly that is not true and yet another one of the anti-pool talking points has been debunked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

It's awfully unfair for you to be accusing others of making things up when you don't have your facts straight.

It is a little complicated to talk about the current use of the field because there isn't really any such thing as "the field." DPR doesn't maintain lines or goals, it's just a large grassy (or "grassy") patch that people can divide up as they see fit. The flat area is about 65 by 105 yards. If you look on Google Maps right now the aerial photo shows it divided into three third grade fields, each 35x50 yards. This season it's being used for high school and second grade, high school is a single field 60x105, second grade is four fields each 30x40.

Where the proposals have shown dimensions the field is never larger than 100x50 yards, and often about three quarters that size. None of the configurations above would fit on a 100x50 field. This is what the folks at DPR don't seem to get, that the dimensions matter, even though their business is nominally recreation. To them, a soccer field is a soccer field.

Yet as you just pointed out the field isn't even being used in the manner it is laid out for yet opponents of change are fighting any change in how the field is laid out.

So what matters - being able to get the games in at a particular site or having a field of some particular dimension?

Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options. Apparently the incredible demand for a full time field that the neighbors keep going on and on about is not really such an incredible demand.

In any case if the neighbors are so concerned about Stoddert and advocating for its interests (and in a sense they should be because it is the only time anyone actually uses the park) then the simply position they should take is to be adamant that the pool simply go where the tennis courts are and leave the soccer field alone.

Barely anyone will notice as the tennis courts are lightly used.

Uh, don’t ya’ think that tennis players might notice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also interesting to learn that the majority of the field use at Stoddert is in smaller configurations for which there would still be plenty of options even under a shrunken field and also for which Stoddert has many other options.

Now you're really showing your ignorance. Every DPR field in the area where "rectangular" field sports are allowed is used heavily. Stoddert in particular is squeezed by the city, they get about one fifth as much field time per player as the DPR average. Stoddert is the only youth sports organization that has to spend heavily to rent fields, they spend over $300,000 a year on rentals. They wouldn't be spending that money if they had "many other options."

Clearly there is not enough field space on spring and fall weekends.

But the anti pool crowd keeps telling us that the field use at Hearst is unique to Hearst and the field has to be that exact same size or there will be some dramatic programmatic impact to Hearst.

Clearly that is not true and yet another one of the anti-pool talking points has been debunked.

It doesn't have to be exactly the same. It just can't be smaller, and it has to be appropriately dimensioned for soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm glad the park gets some use on Saturday's in the spring and fall.

The rest of the year it is almost always some solitary folks with their dogs running illegally off leash.

But the soccer use is no argument against a pool - really it has nothing to do with it as every single proposal for Hearst maintains a large soccer field.

Actually, they show shrinkage of the field, but DPR deliberately chose not to provide any actual dimensions to disguise the extent of the impact.

God we keep going in circles where opponents continue to make things up.

One proposal doesn't even touch the field.

And most of what the opponents are mumbling about are their own perceptions of changes to the fields dimensions.

But what is odd is that most of the opponents are way past the age of having any skin in the game when it comes to youth soccer.

And as someone pointed out in a post in the last couple of days most of the games being played at Hearst are not even using the full dimensions of the field and instead are splitting the space up to play two games.

But keeping making things up - I guess that is what I'd do if neither the facts nor public opinion were on my side.

Talk about making things up. These 'arguments' aren't worth the warm piss in a little DC kiddie pool.