Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can a pool and deck surround that are smaller than a tennis court be worth building? This seems like a waste. If the pool were put in a more accessible area rather than being crammed against the hillsides, it wouldn't be necessary to spend $1 million for an outdoor elevator to go down the hillside. One can imagine that the elevator after a couple of years will be less clean than the condition of Metro elevators.

I use a Metro elevator every day and have never noticed any issues with cleanliness so not sure if you are an actual user though reliability is another story.

The other stuff is simply not true - not sure if you are knowingly repeating the lies of the anti pool neighbors or simply repeating them because you don't know better but DPR is proposing a standard size DC swimming pool.

And again nothing is "crammed" against a hillside. People have been playing tennis in the same location for years though perhaps the reason hardly anyone uses these courts is because they are "crammed" against the hillside.

Also the entirety of the park is located downhill from the street so I'm not sure they have an alternative to putting in some means of getting mobility impaired folks up and down - in fact thinking out loud this location is about the highest point inside of the park and also adjacent to the street so this location probably requires the least expense to locate an ADA compliant pool here. You'd need an elaborate ramp system or multiple elevators to locate it elsewhere.

Not the PP but metro elevators smell like pee and have grime covered windows. Are you sure you ride them frequently?
M

DPR has allowed an abandoned cart full of old stuff to sit for month in the spot where DC says it will build an elevator. If this is any indication of how DC will clean and maintain it, then yes, the elevator will be smelly and filthy.

Not to quibble, but that cart has been there WAY more than a month. I think I first noticed it in August. I take my kids to the Hearst playground almost every weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Build the damn pool now - Ward 3 deserves what every other Ward has.

I hate the "Ward 3 needs a pool" argument because it's so illogical. Ward boundaries are invisible lines, they don't keep anyone from going anywhere. Just because the Volta pool and the Jelleff pool are in Ward 2 doesn't mean that people in Ward 3 can't use them. And are the people who live in Ward 4 in Chevy Chase somehow well-served because parts of their ward which are miles away have outdoor pools?

What's even more illogical is that the Van Ness/Reno area, from where presumably a lot of the cheerleading for "their own" Ward 3 pool is coming, is one of the more likely areas to be shifted from Ward 3 to Ward 4 in a future redistricting. Au revoir!

You think the powers that be would move UDC out of Ward 3? Its current location is completely illogical, but its a tremendous political statement to have it there. A giant middle finger to upper cacausia. You must be new around here.

[Anonymous]

It's also where Mary Cheh lives, so not likely to be districted out of the Ward.

[Anonymous]

So, my strong preference is to have a public pool built at Fort Reno, if logistics can be worked out with the Park Service. There's more space than Hearst, it's very central in Ward 3, lots of parking, in a mixed-use area, a couple of blocks from Metro, major schools, etc.

However, if it comes down to Hearst, there is a better location for the pool than in the southwest corner, against the slopes. Build it in the vicinity of the tennis courts, but specifically centered on the practice court. Why? The site is most accessible and closer to the south entrance of the park. It would not require building (and maintaining) an elevator structure to reach. Because the elevation difference from the entrance is minimal, gradual walkway ramps could provide access, thus saving much money that could be put into a better designed pool. It would be less impactful to the present tennis courts, and in a sunnier location. The practice court is an easier sacrifice than real tennis courts. The pool structure could be a south counterpart to the historic shelter on the north side, and could be compatible in design. Again, Fort Reno makes way more sense for a Ward pool location, but a site closer to the SE corner of Hearst is far more logical than the SW corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, my strong preference is to have a public pool built at Fort Reno, if logistics can be worked out with the Park Service. There's more space than Hearst, it's very central in Ward 3, lots of parking, in a mixed-use area, a couple of blocks from Metro, major schools, etc.

However, if it comes down to Hearst, there is a better location for the pool than in the southwest corner, against the slopes. Build it in the vicinity of the tennis courts, but specifically centered on the practice court. Why? The site is most accessible and closer to the south entrance of the park. It would not require building (and maintaining) an elevator structure to reach. Because the elevation difference from the entrance is minimal, gradual walkway ramps could provide access, thus saving much money that could be put into a better designed pool. It would be less impactful to the present tennis courts, and in a sunnier location. The practice court is an easier sacrifice than real tennis courts. The pool structure could be a south counterpart to the historic shelter on the north side, and could be compatible in design. Again, Fort Reno makes way more sense for a Ward pool location, but a site closer to the SE corner of Hearst is far more logical than the SW corner.

+1. I agree with this, on both points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, my strong preference is to have a public pool built at Fort Reno, if logistics can be worked out with the Park Service. There's more space than Hearst, it's very central in Ward 3, lots of parking, in a mixed-use area, a couple of blocks from Metro, major schools, etc.

However, if it comes down to Hearst, there is a better location for the pool than in the southwest corner, against the slopes. Build it in the vicinity of the tennis courts, but specifically centered on the practice court. Why? The site is most accessible and closer to the south entrance of the park. It would not require building (and maintaining) an elevator structure to reach. Because the elevation difference from the entrance is minimal, gradual walkway ramps could provide access, thus saving much money that could be put into a better designed pool. It would be less impactful to the present tennis courts, and in a sunnier location. The practice court is an easier sacrifice than real tennis courts. The pool structure could be a south counterpart to the historic shelter on the north side, and could be compatible in design. Again, Fort Reno makes way more sense for a Ward pool location, but a site closer to the SE corner of Hearst is far more logical than the SW corner.

+1. I agree with this, on both points.

Build on the tennis courts, not on the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, my strong preference is to have a public pool built at Fort Reno, if logistics can be worked out with the Park Service. There's more space than Hearst, it's very central in Ward 3, lots of parking, in a mixed-use area, a couple of blocks from Metro, major schools, etc.

However, if it comes down to Hearst, there is a better location for the pool than in the southwest corner, against the slopes. Build it in the vicinity of the tennis courts, but specifically centered on the practice court. Why? The site is most accessible and closer to the south entrance of the park. It would not require building (and maintaining) an elevator structure to reach. Because the elevation difference from the entrance is minimal, gradual walkway ramps could provide access, thus saving much money that could be put into a better designed pool. It would be less impactful to the present tennis courts, and in a sunnier location. The practice court is an easier sacrifice than real tennis courts. The pool structure could be a south counterpart to the historic shelter on the north side, and could be compatible in design. Again, Fort Reno makes way more sense for a Ward pool location, but a site closer to the SE corner of Hearst is far more logical than the SW corner.

+1. I agree with this, on both points.

Build on the tennis courts, not on the field.

Build at Fort Reno, not at Hearst. Who needs a glorified kiddie pool wedged in with a shoehorn?

[Anonymous]

Build both. We need outdoor pools in the area.

[Anonymous]

Can someone in Ward 3 please run against Cheh?

[Anonymous]

Look at Hearst Park on Google maps (earth view). Then consider that the pool that DC is proposing, together with deck and pool house, is supposed to fit within the footprint of one tennis court. As a 'yard' stick, look to the Sidwell football field next door, and note that the proposed Hearst pool and infrastructure would fit between the 10 and 20 yard lines and the long axis of the field. When viewed against these dimensions, DC's plan seems quite ridiculous and not worth the cost for such a small pool (assuming that DC is being truthful on dimensions). It almost seems like just a bureaucratic check-the-box exercise. ("Ward 3 pool. Check.") Instead, let DC continue the recent engagement with the National Park Service and build a proper-sized facility at Fort Reno Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at Hearst Park on Google maps (earth view). Then consider that the pool that DC is proposing, together with deck and pool house, is supposed to fit within the footprint of one tennis court. As a 'yard' stick, look to the Sidwell football field next door, and note that the proposed Hearst pool and infrastructure would fit between the 10 and 20 yard lines and the long axis of the field. When viewed against these dimensions, DC's plan seems quite ridiculous and not worth the cost for such a small pool (assuming that DC is being truthful on dimensions). It almost seems like just a bureaucratic check-the-box exercise. ("Ward 3 pool. Check.") Instead, let DC continue the recent engagement with the National Park Service and build a proper-sized facility at Fort Reno Park.

OMG this again.

What engagement with NPS? They have repeatedly rejected putting a pool at Ft Reno. And even if they hadn't it would take years longer to build and might require congressional action.

All while we have a perfectly suitable site at Hearst.

If you want to look at satellite shots look at Volta Park - it has the same size pool as proposed for Hearst and a pool house and it has a tennis court immediately adjacent to the pool so you can see the relative sizes of everything.

I've read your post 3 times and still don't understand why I'm looking across the street at Sidwell to size up what will fit at Hearst.

Everyone gets that the neighbors don't want a pool at Hearst but repeating the same ridiculous arguments doesn't make them sound or true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone in Ward 3 please run against Cheh?

Yup -if she had any backbone she would have stood up to the ridiculous Hearst neighbors years ago and we'd have been enjoying a pool in our own neighborhood rather than having to drive 20 minutes and spend money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone in Ward 3 please run against Cheh?

Yup -if she had any backbone she would have stood up to the ridiculous Hearst neighbors years ago and we'd have been enjoying a pool in our own neighborhood rather than having to drive 20 minutes and spend money.

F U

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone in Ward 3 please run against Cheh?

Yup -if she had any backbone she would have stood up to the ridiculous Hearst neighbors years ago and we'd have been enjoying a pool in our own neighborhood rather than having to drive 20 minutes and spend money.

+1

This thread is years old and we are barely anywhere closer to getting a walkable pool. The Hearst Neighbors are being petty and selfish and just moving the goalposts like any NIMBY group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone in Ward 3 please run against Cheh?

Yup -if she had any backbone she would have stood up to the ridiculous Hearst neighbors years ago and we'd have been enjoying a pool in our own neighborhood rather than having to drive 20 minutes and spend money.

Petar Dimtchev is running against her: https://petarforward3.com/home/