Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

How about building the homeless shelter there and the pool by the police station? Pool would have easy access to Wisconsin ave. and if the homeless shelter is actually serving families as was claimed, it's next to Hearst and in bounds for Deal and Wilson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about building the homeless shelter there and the pool by the police station? Pool would have easy access to Wisconsin ave. and if the homeless shelter is actually serving families as was claimed, it's next to Hearst and in bounds for Deal and Wilson.

I liked the idea of building a large homeless shelter on top of the Tenley library. They actually constructed the library with reinforced columns to support an additional 8 stories on top. Then the children who live there would get access to Deal and Wilson and to Janney. In fact, they could put a back entrance in right off the Janney playground, which would be super convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ft. Reno would be a substantially better location, and I say this as someone who lives EOTP and has no dog in the fight. The Hearst site is too small to have a pool and maintain other uses, while Ft. Reno could accommodate a pool and still have room for two large soccer fields. It is also closer to metro and would have a lot more sunshine, while a pool at Hearst would be very shaded.

+100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing a pool, even at Hearst, but the proposed location is about the worst place for it. It's sandwiched in next to two steep hillsides (requiring an expensive elevator tower) and will be completely in shade for much of the day. It will feel like swimming at the bottom of a bathtub. Either find a better site, like below the Hearst Park shelter, or better yet, build the pool at Fort Reno where it will have more room and be more accessible to more people.

Again these things are not true.

Please go to the Bethesda Pool in summer (it is the one we go to because it is 20 minutes closer to where we live than any outdoor DC Public Pool) and the first filled spaces around the pool are always those in the shade. I realize it is hard to remember this is April when it is 35 degrees out but we have hot summers here.

Which is why we need a pool.

And why the many people who go to a pool and don't necessarily swim like shade.

Again Ft Reno is a non-starter. There is not going to be a public pool on NPS land.

And like swimming at the bottom of a bath tub? I've actually played tennis on those tennis courts (they are always available since they are barely used) and it is not like playing tennis in the bottom of a bath tub so not sure why you think this bit of hyperbole will resonate with anyone.

False. There are discussions underway with the Interior Department and NPS about a long term lease at Fort Reno for a pool. This wouldn't be the first time: RFK, Murch school, and various other DC facilities are all or partly on land owned by the Park Service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ft. Reno would be a substantially better location, and I say this as someone who lives EOTP and has no dog in the fight. The Hearst site is too small to have a pool and maintain other uses, while Ft. Reno could accommodate a pool and still have room for two large soccer fields. It is also closer to metro and would have a lot more sunshine, while a pool at Hearst would be very shaded.

Read a PP. People like a shaded area to sit at a pool. It is effing hot in the sun, which is why we need a pool, and why people like to be shaded in the summer.

NPS won't allow a pool on its property.

We have funding now for a pool at Hearst. There is simply no reason not to put it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about building the homeless shelter there and the pool by the police station? Pool would have easy access to Wisconsin ave. and if the homeless shelter is actually serving families as was claimed, it's next to Hearst and in bounds for Deal and Wilson.

Hearst is closer to Wisconsin Ave than where the shelter is going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing a pool, even at Hearst, but the proposed location is about the worst place for it. It's sandwiched in next to two steep hillsides (requiring an expensive elevator tower) and will be completely in shade for much of the day. It will feel like swimming at the bottom of a bathtub. Either find a better site, like below the Hearst Park shelter, or better yet, build the pool at Fort Reno where it will have more room and be more accessible to more people.

Again these things are not true.

Please go to the Bethesda Pool in summer (it is the one we go to because it is 20 minutes closer to where we live than any outdoor DC Public Pool) and the first filled spaces around the pool are always those in the shade. I realize it is hard to remember this is April when it is 35 degrees out but we have hot summers here.

Which is why we need a pool.

And why the many people who go to a pool and don't necessarily swim like shade.

Again Ft Reno is a non-starter. There is not going to be a public pool on NPS land.

And like swimming at the bottom of a bath tub? I've actually played tennis on those tennis courts (they are always available since they are barely used) and it is not like playing tennis in the bottom of a bath tub so not sure why you think this bit of hyperbole will resonate with anyone.

False. There are discussions underway with the Interior Department and NPS about a long term lease at Fort Reno for a pool. This wouldn't be the first time: RFK, Murch school, and various other DC facilities are all or partly on land owned by the Park Service.

Again THIS IS NOT TRUE. What is your source for this? DGS and Mary Cheh's staff have repeatedly stated that NPS has been asked multiple times about this and repeatedly, and formally, responded that this is a non-starter.

And your examples are terrible and reveal an ignorance of the history of land ownership in the District and give no indication of the ease or likelihood of getting a pool on NPS land.

[Anonymous]

How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

It would be criminal to avoid programming a public park to be used by the public for how the public wants to use it, particularly at the behst of a handful of nearby neighbors who are selfishly fighting it.

It ain't YOUR park. It belongs to all of us. You just happen to live close to it. That doesn't give you more rights, more say or more sway over what happens there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

The facts are not on your side. The Beauvoir pool memberships sold out in 3 hours and cost over $1000. There are lines to use the Volta pool. There is incredible demand for a public outdoor pool in upper NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

It would be criminal to avoid programming a public park to be used by the public for how the public wants to use it, particularly at the behst of a handful of nearby neighbors who are selfishly fighting it.

It ain't YOUR park. It belongs to all of us. You just happen to live close to it. That doesn't give you more rights, more say or more sway over what happens there.

Congratulations! You’ve persuaded me — to oppose the pool at Hearst. I WAS fine with it at first. But who are you to preach about what community opinion is? 2500 messages later it’s clear that people have different opinions, not just on this forum but at ANC meetings and expressed in the Northwest Current etc. Must you always delegitimize and denigrate the concerns of close-by neighbors or soccer moms or tennis players? Their opinions also count. You come across as the selfish one, like “I want MY pool and I want it NOW! “

So build the pool in Ward 3, just anywhere but Hearst Park. That way, there’s less chance that I’ll hear you at the pool. If you’re this nasty on-line, then it would probably be no picnic (or pool party) in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

It would be criminal to avoid programming a public park to be used by the public for how the public wants to use it, particularly at the behst of a handful of nearby neighbors who are selfishly fighting it.

It ain't YOUR park. It belongs to all of us. You just happen to live close to it. That doesn't give you more rights, more say or more sway over what happens there.

Congratulations! You’ve persuaded me — to oppose the pool at Hearst. I WAS fine with it at first. But who are you to preach about what community opinion is? 2500 messages later it’s clear that people have different opinions, not just on this forum but at ANC meetings and expressed in the Northwest Current etc. Must you always delegitimize and denigrate the concerns of close-by neighbors or soccer moms or tennis players? Their opinions also count. You come across as the selfish one, like “I want MY pool and I want it NOW! “

So build the pool in Ward 3, just anywhere but Hearst Park. That way, there’s less chance that I’ll hear you at the pool. If you’re this nasty on-line, then it would probably be no picnic (or pool party) in person.

Not preaching. Calling a spade a spade.

You can do what you want, but it is a public park. The people who live near it chose to live there, for better or worse. It is the same thing with people who choose to live in Palisades and then complain about the airplanes, though those have been flying over for 80 years. The programming for the park changes depending on needs. Just because it is lightly programmed now doesn't mean it always has to be. Glover Park has a field, a playground and a community center that has lots of classes. Chevy Chase has a field, tennis courts and a playground. The Chevy Chase Community Center has a basketball court, and classes in the building. Layfayette has tennis courts and playgrounds. Forest Hills has a field and playground. They are all programmed differently, and they have all changed and evolved over the years.

Maybe the city should be looking at more than one site for an outdoor pool as per the DPR master plan. Put one at Hearst and one at Lafayette. I highly doubt the people in Chevy Chase would oppose it. To the contrary, they would likely welcome it with open arms. But it wouldn't be very accessible to people outside of Chevy Chase without having to drive to it. That is why Hearst is a good site, because it is great for those who live close by and is centrally located with plenty of unused street parking during the months when it would be open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

The facts are not on your side. The Beauvoir pool memberships sold out in 3 hours and cost over $1000. There are lines to use the Volta pool. There is incredible demand for a public outdoor pool in upper NW.

Remodeling Wilson is ridiculous. How about the Hearst pool is indoor/outdoor? There's a huge demand for pool space year-round, a situation that will get worse with Lab closing its pool. Build the Hearst pool with a bubble like is happening elsewhere: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/national/ymca-wanted-use-outdoor-pool-winter-added-giant-bubble-dome/AzSEu5b76WfKsffEwvYlHI/amp.html#ampshare=https://www.ajc.com/news/national/ymca-wanted-use-outdoor-pool-winter-added-giant-bubble-dome/AzSEu5b76WfKsffEwvYlHI/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

The facts are not on your side. The Beauvoir pool memberships sold out in 3 hours and cost over $1000. There are lines to use the Volta pool. There is incredible demand for a public outdoor pool in upper NW.

Remodeling Wilson is ridiculous. How about the Hearst pool is indoor/outdoor? There's a huge demand for pool space year-round, a situation that will get worse with Lab closing its pool. Build the Hearst pool with a bubble like is happening elsewhere: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/national/ymca-wanted-use-outdoor-pool-winter-added-giant-bubble-dome/AzSEu5b76WfKsffEwvYlHI/amp.html#ampshare=https://www.ajc.com/news/national/ymca-wanted-use-outdoor-pool-winter-added-giant-bubble-dome/AzSEu5b76WfKsffEwvYlHI/

This is the silliest idea yet. Build, maintain, heat and secure a smallish indoor public pool at Hearst, which is less than one mile (a 5 min drive) from Wilson Aquatic Center pool, which DPR doesn't exactly do a great job of maintaining at scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about remodeling the Wilson Aquatic Center to allow for a huge open-air deck with roll-up window walls? It would be criminal to change the 100-year stretch of serenity enjoyed by the Hearst neighborhood.

The facts are not on your side. The Beauvoir pool memberships sold out in 3 hours and cost over $1000. There are lines to use the Volta pool. There is incredible demand for a public outdoor pool in upper NW.

Remodeling Wilson is ridiculous. How about the Hearst pool is indoor/outdoor? There's a huge demand for pool space year-round, a situation that will get worse with Lab closing its pool. Build the Hearst pool with a bubble like is happening elsewhere: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ajc.com/news/national/ymca-wanted-use-outdoor-pool-winter-added-giant-bubble-dome/AzSEu5b76WfKsffEwvYlHI/amp.html#ampshare=https://www.ajc.com/news/national/ymca-wanted-use-outdoor-pool-winter-added-giant-bubble-dome/AzSEu5b76WfKsffEwvYlHI/

This is the silliest idea yet. Build, maintain, heat and secure a smallish indoor public pool at Hearst, which is less than one mile (a 5 min drive) from Wilson Aquatic Center pool, which DPR doesn't exactly do a great job of maintaining at scale.

The suggestion was for Hearst to be indoor/outdoor, which means outdoor in the summer, which Wilson is not, and indoor in the winter. What is silly about that? It certainly addresses the opponents' views that the pool shouldn't be built because it would only be used in summer. If you think people won't use an indoor pool because it's small, you don't have a clue about the demand for pool space in this area.