Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

Lights only make sense if the surface is artificial turf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

As in, we can fu@# Hearst Park up, or we can fu@ Hearst Park up the a$* if you keep opposing us. Nice.

No. More as in we are calling your bluff to expose your true agenda.

To keep Hearst as a valuable green park which serves a lot of users, including Stoddert soccer. Preserving the tree canopy in DC-managed parks is one of Casey Trees’ top strategic priorities. Or we could slice and dice the park up, pave it with a lot more concrete and rename it a “DPR recreation facility center.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They're not talking about "tweaking" the field, they're talking about shrinking it.

Keeping it the same size and changing the configuration would probably be fine. (Although that's a hypothetical, I can't imagine how you'd do that.) Shrinking it means less utility and fewer kids served.

Hearst is also now one of only two DPR fields west of Rock Creek that is big enough for high school age games to be played (and soccer is allowed). The other is Fort Reno. Last spring, Wilson baseball put a fence up at Fort Reno making it unusable for soccer. DPR announced this fall that it wants to make Fort Reno primarily a baseball field -- despite the fact that there is already a strong over-abundance of baseball fields relative to the number of players. So it is important to soccer players to keep the field dimensions at Hearst.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the field isn't used just for games but also for practices. It has four movable goals, teams will just improvise a practice space. There are over 3,000 kids in Ward 3 who play soccer, and Hearst is one of only a handful of places where they can practice on weekday afternoons, most DPR fields prohibit anything other than diamond sports. Shrinking the field would cut into the number of kids who can practice there.

This is patently false. As a former Stoddert coach who signed up for practice times, there were literally dozens of sites were weekday practices can take place. In fact, because it is grass and cannot be used when it is wet, it is one of the least desirable of the practice fields available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

Neighbors are batshit opposed to any lights at Hearst. This battle goes back decades. I think it would be great, and the is newer technology that limits light pollution, so good luck with that fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

As in, we can fu@# Hearst Park up, or we can fu@ Hearst Park up the a$* if you keep opposing us. Nice.

No. More as in we are calling your bluff to expose your true agenda.

To keep Hearst as a valuable green park which serves a lot of users, including Stoddert soccer. Preserving the tree canopy in DC-managed parks is one of Casey Trees’ top strategic priorities. Or we could slice and dice the park up, pave it with a lot more concrete and rename it a “DPR recreation facility center.”

As has been cited at least 200 times in this thread, there isn't one proposal that includes the removal of any of the lined trees in the park. Not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They're not talking about "tweaking" the field, they're talking about shrinking it.

Keeping it the same size and changing the configuration would probably be fine. (Although that's a hypothetical, I can't imagine how you'd do that.) Shrinking it means less utility and fewer kids served.

Hearst is also now one of only two DPR fields west of Rock Creek that is big enough for high school age games to be played (and soccer is allowed). The other is Fort Reno. Last spring, Wilson baseball put a fence up at Fort Reno making it unusable for soccer. DPR announced this fall that it wants to make Fort Reno primarily a baseball field -- despite the fact that there is already a strong over-abundance of baseball fields relative to the number of players. So it is important to soccer players to keep the field dimensions at Hearst.

What hasn't been mentioned is that the field isn't used just for games but also for practices. It has four movable goals, teams will just improvise a practice space. There are over 3,000 kids in Ward 3 who play soccer, and Hearst is one of only a handful of places where they can practice on weekday afternoons, most DPR fields prohibit anything other than diamond sports. Shrinking the field would cut into the number of kids who can practice there.

This is patently false. As a former Stoddert coach who signed up for practice times, there were literally dozens of sites were weekday practices can take place. In fact, because it is grass and cannot be used when it is wet, it is one of the least desirable of the practice fields available.

As a current coach I can say that is no longer the case. DPR has been curtailing the amount of weekday space for soccer quite severely. In the current season, the field space available in Ward 3 for signup was:
Hardy Tuesday (5-6pm), Thursday and Friday
Hearst Monday, Tuesday-Thursday (6-7pm), Friday
Fort Reno Monday-Friday (6-7pm)
Palisades Monday and Wednesday (3:30-4:30), Friday 3:30-5:30.

There are over 3,000 kids in Ward 3 who play Stoddert Soccer and that's it.

At Fort Reno only the tiny "Auxiliary" field is available for soccer, DPR now considers the main field to be only a baseball field even though organized soccer had been played there for 40 years. Note that in the fall season time after 6pm isn't really usable because by now it is already dark then.

The only artificial turf field on that list is Palisades which is available four hours a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone did a calculation earlier in the thread, but if you had 3 doubles matches running from sun up to sen set every day of the year, you still wouldn't have the same number of park users as you would for 3 months of a pool.

Given the courts sit empty most of the year, it becomes a no-brainer in terms of DPR filling its mission to have a pool to attract and retain park users.

There are public courts that are mostly unused at Chesapeake, Lafayette, Chevy Chase, Turtle Park, UDC and Rose/Montrose. There are a ton of private courts including Sidwell, St Albans/NCS etc in the immediate vicinity.

The handful of avid tennis players have plenty of walkable options.

The hundreds of potential outdoor pool users don't.

By this logic the thing to do is to bulldoze the tennis courts at Hearst and put in another soccer field. Then get rid of the baseball fields at Fort Reno, Stoddert, Palisades and Friendship and turn them into soccer fields as well. Because soccer has by far the highest participation of any activity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

Neighbors are batshit opposed to any lights at Hearst. This battle goes back decades. I think it would be great, and the is newer technology that limits light pollution, so good luck with that fight.

Stop with the “newer technology that limits light pollution.” Despite all of the knowledge around light pollution, DC has actually been moving in the opposite direction, by replacing street light bulbs that cast a softer light with new cobra style lights with a bright white or orange intensity that one can easily read by. People practically have to get blackout curtains so that they can sleep in our homes. Now some our streets are illuminated like a maximum security prison yard in Southeast. What makes one think that the DC government would do any better with the Park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

As in, we can fu@# Hearst Park up, or we can fu@ Hearst Park up the a$* if you keep opposing us. Nice.

No. More as in we are calling your bluff to expose your true agenda.

To keep Hearst as a valuable green park which serves a lot of users, including Stoddert soccer. Preserving the tree canopy in DC-managed parks is one of Casey Trees’ top strategic priorities. Or we could slice and dice the park up, pave it with a lot more concrete and rename it a “DPR recreation facility center.”

As has been cited at least 200 times in this thread, there isn't one proposal that includes the removal of any of the lined trees in the park. Not one.

There has also not been one proposal that includes real dimensions. Oh, and DGS says that while there is no intention to remove any of the large trees, they allow that treees may have to come down for “safety reasons.” Like when construction impacts the root ball perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

Neighbors are batshit opposed to any lights at Hearst. This battle goes back decades. I think it would be great, and the is newer technology that limits light pollution, so good luck with that fight.

Stop with the “newer technology that limits light pollution.” Despite all of the knowledge around light pollution, DC has actually been moving in the opposite direction, by replacing street light bulbs that cast a softer light with new cobra style lights with a bright white or orange intensity that one can easily read by. People practically have to get blackout curtains so that they can sleep in our homes. Now some our streets are illuminated like a maximum security prison yard in Southeast. What makes one think that the DC government would do any better with the Park?

Oh geez there is nothing but hyperbole on this thread. I've got an LED streetlight literally 30 feet from my bedroom window and this is most definitely not the case that it is like a prison yard. And what is with the reference to southeast - I doubt anyone from CP has ever set foot in SE DC except maybe to attend a Nats game but maybe you can elaborate?

[Anonymous]

I drove by Hearst yesterday at 4PM while driving between one kids Little League game at very crowded Rose Park in Georgetown on our way to very crowded Friendship (Turtle Park) for another Little League game and the only person in Hearst Park at 4PM on a beautiful fall day was a single woman with her dog running illegally off leash.

Not a single person was playing tennis.

Not a single person was playing soccer.

As is always the case Hearst ES was brimming with activity - there was a soccer game on the turf field, a pick-up basketball game being played and the playground was full of kids.

But nothing going on in the vibrant over-programmed Hearst Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would the soccer crowd be in favor of lighted fields? That could allow an even greater number of users AND accommodate a pool. Pool opponents better stop overplaying their hand or else additional solutions can easily be explored.

As in, we can fu@# Hearst Park up, or we can fu@ Hearst Park up the a$* if you keep opposing us. Nice.

No. More as in we are calling your bluff to expose your true agenda.

To keep Hearst as a valuable green park which serves a lot of users, including Stoddert soccer. Preserving the tree canopy in DC-managed parks is one of Casey Trees’ top strategic priorities. Or we could slice and dice the park up, pave it with a lot more concrete and rename it a “DPR recreation facility center.”

As has been cited at least 200 times in this thread, there isn't one proposal that includes the removal of any of the lined trees in the park. Not one.

There has also not been one proposal that includes real dimensions. Oh, and DGS says that while there is no intention to remove any of the large trees, they allow that treees may have to come down for “safety reasons.” Like when construction impacts the root ball perhaps.

Branches from one tree started falling about 6 years ago. The trees should be checked for health, but it would be against city law to cut down any of the healthy trees - they are all heritage trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drove by Hearst yesterday at 4PM while driving between one kids Little League game at very crowded Rose Park in Georgetown on our way to very crowded Friendship (Turtle Park) for another Little League game and the only person in Hearst Park at 4PM on a beautiful fall day was a single woman with her dog running illegally off leash.

Not a single person was playing tennis.

Not a single person was playing soccer.

As is always the case Hearst ES was brimming with activity - there was a soccer game on the turf field, a pick-up basketball game being played and the playground was full of kids.

But nothing going on in the vibrant over-programmed Hearst Park.

This account seems a little B.S.-y, excuse me. 37th St, which lies east of Wisconsin Ave. isn't exactly the most direct way from Georgetown to Turtle Park, which is west of Wisconsin. That would be Wisconsin itself. And the only way to see into Hearst Park, especially the tennis courts, would be to practically circle the southern end of the park, heading west on Rodman, then SW on Idaho, then west on Quebec, and north on 37th. A bit of a detour, if you were hurrying from one ("very crowded") baseball game to another.

I was at Hearst yesterday, and it was being enjoyed by a lot of users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove by Hearst yesterday at 4PM while driving between one kids Little League game at very crowded Rose Park in Georgetown on our way to very crowded Friendship (Turtle Park) for another Little League game and the only person in Hearst Park at 4PM on a beautiful fall day was a single woman with her dog running illegally off leash.

Not a single person was playing tennis.

Not a single person was playing soccer.

As is always the case Hearst ES was brimming with activity - there was a soccer game on the turf field, a pick-up basketball game being played and the playground was full of kids.

But nothing going on in the vibrant over-programmed Hearst Park.

This account seems a little B.S.-y, excuse me. 37th St, which lies east of Wisconsin Ave. isn't exactly the most direct way from Georgetown to Turtle Park, which is west of Wisconsin. That would be Wisconsin itself. And the only way to see into Hearst Park, especially the tennis courts, would be to practically circle the southern end of the park, heading west on Rodman, then SW on Idaho, then west on Quebec, and north on 37th. A bit of a detour, if you were hurrying from one ("very crowded") baseball game to another.

I was at Hearst yesterday, and it was being enjoyed by a lot of users.

Correction: I was there on Saturday and a lot of users were at Hearst. Sunday, not so much, because the weather was kind of a washout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove by Hearst yesterday at 4PM while driving between one kids Little League game at very crowded Rose Park in Georgetown on our way to very crowded Friendship (Turtle Park) for another Little League game and the only person in Hearst Park at 4PM on a beautiful fall day was a single woman with her dog running illegally off leash.

Not a single person was playing tennis.

Not a single person was playing soccer.

As is always the case Hearst ES was brimming with activity - there was a soccer game on the turf field, a pick-up basketball game being played and the playground was full of kids.

But nothing going on in the vibrant over-programmed Hearst Park.

This account seems a little B.S.-y, excuse me. 37th St, which lies east of Wisconsin Ave. isn't exactly the most direct way from Georgetown to Turtle Park, which is west of Wisconsin. That would be Wisconsin itself. And the only way to see into Hearst Park, especially the tennis courts, would be to practically circle the southern end of the park, heading west on Rodman, then SW on Idaho, then west on Quebec, and north on 37th. A bit of a detour, if you were hurrying from one ("very crowded") baseball game to another.

I was at Hearst yesterday, and it was being enjoyed by a lot of users.

Nope not BS - was coming back from Rose on Reno (much of Georgetown is east of Wisconsin in case you've never been) and cut across by Hearst to get over to Wisconsin.

And don't need to circle - get out of the car at the corner of 37th and Quebec to see the park.

And nothing to see except a lady and her off leash dog.