Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

This will be the third or 4th time the field has been "regraded" and new soil and irrigation and sod installed.

They may as well leave the mud bod and put the money into more water retention for the benefit of Springland Lane neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be the third or 4th time the field has been "regraded" and new soil and irrigation and sod installed.

They may as well leave the mud bod and put the money into more water retention for the benefit of Springland Lane neighbors.

I'm a soccer dad and I agree. Either put down artificial turf or leave it be. Natural grass isn't going to work there. I think they already have sprinklers, the site is certainly wet all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

But then the PP's comment about the alternative location down the slope from the park shelter doesn't make sense at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

But then the PP's comment about the alternative location down the slope from the park shelter doesn't make sense at all.

Google Maps shows the property lines in the street map view. Try this: in map view, zoom in on 37th Street and right click on the property line and select "measure distance." Then click on the edge of the road. Switch to aerial view, and drag the marker you just put down to the edge of the sidewalk. That will show you the distance between the edge of the existing sidewalk and the property line, it's about 4 feet. DPR is allowed as a matter of right to build a walkway across that four feet to provide access to the property.

If you do the same technique in the northeast corner, you'll see that there is about 12 yards to the north of where the soccer field is marked to the property line, and about 20 yards to the east. The land to the north is owned by DCPS and to the east is owned by DDOT. The DDOT land could be used for an accessway -- walkway or driveway -- but it can't be used for a structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

But then the PP's comment about the alternative location down the slope from the park shelter doesn't make sense at all.

Google Maps shows the property lines in the street map view. Try this: in map view, zoom in on 37th Street and right click on the

property line and select "measure distance." Then click on the edge of the road. Switch to aerial view, and drag the marker you just put down to the edge of the sidewalk. That will show you the distance between the edge of the existing sidewalk and the property line, it's about 4 feet. DPR is allowed as a matter of right to build a walkway across that four feet to provide access to the property.

If you do the same technique in the northeast corner, you'll see that there is about 12 yards to the north of where the soccer field is marked to the property line, and about 20 yards to the east. The land to the north is owned by DCPS and to the east is owned by DDOT. The DDOT land could be used for an accessway -- walkway or driveway -- but it can't be used for a structure.

You think that DDOT is going to build a road on a landlocked historical right of way? These can always be transferred by Council action. Unless you'd like to see a new Klingle Road rebuilt there?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

But then the PP's comment about the alternative location down the slope from the park shelter doesn't make sense at all.

Google Maps shows the property lines in the street map view. Try this: in map view, zoom in on 37th Street and right click on the property line and select "measure distance." Then click on the edge of the road. Switch to aerial view, and drag the marker you just put down to the edge of the sidewalk. That will show you the distance between the edge of the existing sidewalk and the property line, it's about 4 feet. DPR is allowed as a matter of right to build a walkway across that four feet to provide access to the property.

If you do the same technique in the northeast corner, you'll see that there is about 12 yards to the north of where the soccer field is marked to the property line, and about 20 yards to the east. The land to the north is owned by DCPS and to the east is owned by DDOT. The DDOT land could be used for an accessway -- walkway or driveway -- but it can't be used for a structure.

I don't think that this is correct. While Hearst School and some adjacent no doubt are DCPS assets, both ends of the upper playground are signed on the 37th St fence with the DPR logo as "Hearst Recreation Center." And the Hearst shelter is also up the slope. So clearly a substantial part of the land on the upper terrace belongs to DPR, not DCPS, although the school kids also use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

But then the PP's comment about the alternative location down the slope from the park shelter doesn't make sense at all.

Google Maps shows the property lines in the street map view. Try this: in map view, zoom in on 37th Street and right click on the property line and select "measure distance." Then click on the edge of the road. Switch to aerial view, and drag the marker you just put down to the edge of the sidewalk. That will show you the distance between the edge of the existing sidewalk and the property line, it's about 4 feet. DPR is allowed as a matter of right to build a walkway across that four feet to provide access to the property.

If you do the same technique in the northeast corner, you'll see that there is about 12 yards to the north of where the soccer field is marked to the property line, and about 20 yards to the east. The land to the north is owned by DCPS and to the east is owned by DDOT. The DDOT land could be used for an accessway -- walkway or driveway -- but it can't be used for a structure.

I don't think that this is correct. While Hearst School and some adjacent no doubt are DCPS assets, both ends of the upper playground are signed on the 37th St fence with the DPR logo as "Hearst Recreation Center." And the Hearst shelter is also up the slope. So clearly a substantial part of the land on the upper terrace belongs to DPR, not DCPS, although the school kids also use it.

On the DGS website is the handout from the last meeting, https://www.slideshare.net/shannonj87/4614-001?ref=https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

On page 11 of the document is a site survey. It confirms that the part under consideration for this project is just the lower playground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was looking at Hearst Park the other day and believe that there could be a way to build a reasonably-sized pool with no impact to existing facilities. Instead of putting it at the south end where the tennis courts are or alongside the field, build it at the north end of the field just at the bottom of the slope from the playground. The field dimensions would not be affected, and there are no large, legacy trees in that parkt of the park. It puts the pool closer to the playground, the Hearst park house and offstreet parking (presumably the school lot can be used in the summer). It moves the pool about as far away from neighboring houses as possible, minimizing the visual impact of lights at night and in the winter. This could be a win-win.

It would impact the roots of the bog trees there, and much of that space actually belongs to DDOT, not DPR.

The latest DC plan is to build an elevator tower down the slope from 37th St, near Rodman, to access the pool level 20 feet below. That land belongs to DDOT -- but that's not a problem?

The land that DDOT owns is not part of a lot, it's the unused part of the right-of-way for the street. Under DC law, if the right-of-way is not being used the adjoining landowner is allowed to improve it to provide access to his property. Otherwise it would be impossible to have driveways or walkways.

But then the PP's comment about the alternative location down the slope from the park shelter doesn't make sense at all.

Google Maps shows the property lines in the street map view. Try this: in map view, zoom in on 37th Street and right click on the property line and select "measure distance." Then click on the edge of the road. Switch to aerial view, and drag the marker you just put down to the edge of the sidewalk. That will show you the distance between the edge of the existing sidewalk and the property line, it's about 4 feet. DPR is allowed as a matter of right to build a walkway across that four feet to provide access to the property.

If you do the same technique in the northeast corner, you'll see that there is about 12 yards to the north of where the soccer field is marked to the property line, and about 20 yards to the east. The land to the north is owned by DCPS and to the east is owned by DDOT. The DDOT land could be used for an accessway -- walkway or driveway -- but it can't be used for a structure.

I don't think that this is correct. While Hearst School and some adjacent no doubt are DCPS assets, both ends of the upper playground are signed on the 37th St fence with the DPR logo as "Hearst Recreation Center." And the Hearst shelter is also up the slope. So clearly a substantial part of the land on the upper terrace belongs to DPR, not DCPS, although the school kids also use it.

On the DGS website is the handout from the last meeting, https://www.slideshare.net/shannonj87/4614-001?ref=https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

On page 11 of the document is a site survey. It confirms that the part under consideration for this project is just the lower playground.

That's different than "DCPS owns the land." The PP's point was that a location at the north side of the field down the slope from the park shelter could be considered as being accessible, not disturbing existing features and being far removed from neighboring houses. Makes sense to study it.

[Anonymous]

This slide presentation doesn't have any detail on the configuration of the pool, dimensions or how the tennis courts will be impacted. Does DGS not own a measuring tape?! LOL.

[Anonymous]

DGS is still at the conceptual stage, but will complete final plans very quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be the third or 4th time the field has been "regraded" and new soil and irrigation and sod installed.

They may as well leave the mud bod and put the money into more water retention for the benefit of Springland Lane neighbors.

I'm a soccer dad and I agree. Either put down artificial turf or leave it be. Natural grass isn't going to work there. I think they already have sprinklers, the site is certainly wet all the time.

It seems like DPR has an institutional aversion to asking its users how facilities are used. If they happen to hear information from users, it is ignored.

[Anonymous]

If soccer were banned on grass fields, we wouldn't have mud holes like this.

Grass isn't meant to sustain hours of foot traffic every day, nonstop. Either ban soccer and other ball sports, or put down synthetic turf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If soccer were banned on grass fields, we wouldn't have mud holes like this.

Grass isn't meant to sustain hours of foot traffic every day, nonstop. Either ban soccer and other ball sports, or put down synthetic turf.

Note that this situation is entirely a result of DPR's decision to concentrate "rectangle" field sports at a small number of locations.