Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh is horrible, unresponsive and arrogant. I saw her at the Palisades Parade and it almost ruined my morning.

I appreciate that Mary Cheh listened to her constituents and has obtained the resources necessary to get an outdoor public pool into the neighborhood.

It will be a glorified kiddie pool at the bottom of two steep slopes and perpetually in the shade. The only way to make it bigger in this suboptimal location would be to take all of the tennis courts and part of the field.

Why do you pool opponents keep repeating the same stupid talking points???

The pool going into Hearst park is the same size as all of the other outdoor pools in DC, all of which are quite well used and none of which resemble a "glorified kiddie pool" whatever that even is.

And shade at the pool is a good thing - it is always the first space claimed around the Bethesda pool because people usually go to the pool when it is hot.

I wish DPR had taken out all the tennis courts and put in a bigger pool though - the tennis courts are barely used.

I’d be in favor of moving the tennis courts and getting rid of the basketball court. DC has plenty of urban basketball courts. It could always use more tennis courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

I don't need or want to be able to take a lawn chair out to the curb and read a book in the middle of the night. The new DC street lights are just too bright. Another way in which our "Vision Zero" mayor pretends to be an environmentalist, but is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

That would really piss off the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh is horrible, unresponsive and arrogant. I saw her at the Palisades Parade and it almost ruined my morning.

I appreciate that Mary Cheh listened to her constituents and has obtained the resources necessary to get an outdoor public pool into the neighborhood.

It will be a glorified kiddie pool at the bottom of two steep slopes and perpetually in the shade. The only way to make it bigger in this suboptimal location would be to take all of the tennis courts and part of the field.

Why do you pool opponents keep repeating the same stupid talking points???

The pool going into Hearst park is the same size as all of the other outdoor pools in DC, all of which are quite well used and none of which resemble a "glorified kiddie pool" whatever that even is.

And shade at the pool is a good thing - it is always the first space claimed around the Bethesda pool because people usually go to the pool when it is hot.

I wish DPR had taken out all the tennis courts and put in a bigger pool though - the tennis courts are barely used.

I’d be in favor of moving the tennis courts and getting rid of the basketball court. DC has plenty of urban basketball courts. It could always use more tennis courts.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh is horrible, unresponsive and arrogant. I saw her at the Palisades Parade and it almost ruined my morning.

I appreciate that Mary Cheh listened to her constituents and has obtained the resources necessary to get an outdoor public pool into the neighborhood.

It will be a glorified kiddie pool at the bottom of two steep slopes and perpetually in the shade. The only way to make it bigger in this suboptimal location would be to take all of the tennis courts and part of the field.

Why do you pool opponents keep repeating the same stupid talking points???

The pool going into Hearst park is the same size as all of the other outdoor pools in DC, all of which are quite well used and none of which resemble a "glorified kiddie pool" whatever that even is.

And shade at the pool is a good thing - it is always the first space claimed around the Bethesda pool because people usually go to the pool when it is hot.

I wish DPR had taken out all the tennis courts and put in a bigger pool though - the tennis courts are barely used.

I’d be in favor of moving the tennis courts and getting rid of the basketball court. DC has plenty of urban basketball courts. It could always use more tennis courts.

This.

DC's tennis courts are woefully under utilized. My tween has had his soccer games at Hearst for the last two years and this past year my youngest had his practices there and the tennis courts are hardly ever used. Same thing with the courts in Tenleytown at Ft Reno and at Palisades. The Turtle Park courts seems to be used a fair amount but I believe that is because there is a guy who uses them almost full time for tennis lessons.

Having said that the basketball courts I see in Upper NW don't get a lot of use either except for the ones at Chevy Chase Park which have been used for a league for several years which seems to attract some of the league players for games outside of the league schedule.

I suspect an outdoor court at Ft Reno would get a lot of usage though because of the proximity to Wilson & Deal - it would certainly get more usage than the tennis courts there which rarely have more than 1 in use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

That would really piss off the neighborhood.

Why? One one of the 4 sides of the park borders on homes and that side is below grade from the street so the lights would not be noticeable and there is plenty of on-street parking around the school.

There is an acute shortage of field time in DC especially on weeknights so lights here would really serve a need.

Lots of other DPR facilities have lights so if there is a need this one should too.

Having said that you'd really need a turf field if the lights were being installed to facilitate soccer as the extra use would quickly obliterate a grass field.

The main reason the neighbors would object is because they'd lose their illegal dogpark if the field were more intensely used and we know from this 200 page thread that the immediate neighbors think this is their own Gramercy Park and not a public resource.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

So you are intolerant of other considerations. OK. Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps you should move from CP to a tiny house etc? I'm guessing theres more you can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh is horrible, unresponsive and arrogant. I saw her at the Palisades Parade and it almost ruined my morning.

I appreciate that Mary Cheh listened to her constituents and has obtained the resources necessary to get an outdoor public pool into the neighborhood.

It will be a glorified kiddie pool at the bottom of two steep slopes and perpetually in the shade. The only way to make it bigger in this suboptimal location would be to take all of the tennis courts and part of the field.

Why do you pool opponents keep repeating the same stupid talking points???

The pool going into Hearst park is the same size as all of the other outdoor pools in DC, all of which are quite well used and none of which resemble a "glorified kiddie pool" whatever that even is.

And shade at the pool is a good thing - it is always the first space claimed around the Bethesda pool because people usually go to the pool when it is hot.

I wish DPR had taken out all the tennis courts and put in a bigger pool though - the tennis courts are barely used.

I’d be in favor of moving the tennis courts and getting rid of the basketball court. DC has plenty of urban basketball courts. It could always use more tennis courts.

This.

DC's tennis courts are woefully under utilized. My tween has had his soccer games at Hearst for the last two years and this past year my youngest had his practices there and the tennis courts are hardly ever used. Same thing with the courts in Tenleytown at Ft Reno and at Palisades. The Turtle Park courts seems to be used a fair amount but I believe that is because there is a guy who uses them almost full time for tennis lessons.

Having said that the basketball courts I see in Upper NW don't get a lot of use either except for the ones at Chevy Chase Park which have been used for a league for several years which seems to attract some of the league players for games outside of the league schedule.

I suspect an outdoor court at Ft Reno would get a lot of usage though because of the proximity to Wilson & Deal - it would certainly get more usage than the tennis courts there which rarely have more than 1 in use.

More people will use the Hearst pool in one summer weekend than probably use the tennis courts the entire year. The tennis courts are a total waste. And they better put up some “no dog walking signs” on that new field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mary Cheh is horrible, unresponsive and arrogant. I saw her at the Palisades Parade and it almost ruined my morning.

I appreciate that Mary Cheh listened to her constituents and has obtained the resources necessary to get an outdoor public pool into the neighborhood.

It will be a glorified kiddie pool at the bottom of two steep slopes and perpetually in the shade. The only way to make it bigger in this suboptimal location would be to take all of the tennis courts and part of the field.

Why do you pool opponents keep repeating the same stupid talking points???

The pool going into Hearst park is the same size as all of the other outdoor pools in DC, all of which are quite well used and none of which resemble a "glorified kiddie pool" whatever that even is.

And shade at the pool is a good thing - it is always the first space claimed around the Bethesda pool because people usually go to the pool when it is hot.

I wish DPR had taken out all the tennis courts and put in a bigger pool though - the tennis courts are barely used.

I’d be in favor of moving the tennis courts and getting rid of the basketball court. DC has plenty of urban basketball courts. It could always use more tennis courts.

This.

DC's tennis courts are woefully under utilized. My tween has had his soccer games at Hearst for the last two years and this past year my youngest had his practices there and the tennis courts are hardly ever used. Same thing with the courts in Tenleytown at Ft Reno and at Palisades. The Turtle Park courts seems to be used a fair amount but I believe that is because there is a guy who uses them almost full time for tennis lessons.

Having said that the basketball courts I see in Upper NW don't get a lot of use either except for the ones at Chevy Chase Park which have been used for a league for several years which seems to attract some of the league players for games outside of the league schedule.

I suspect an outdoor court at Ft Reno would get a lot of usage though because of the proximity to Wilson & Deal - it would certainly get more usage than the tennis courts there which rarely have more than 1 in use.

More people will use the Hearst pool in one summer weekend than probably use the tennis courts the entire year. The tennis courts are a total waste. And they better put up some “no dog walking signs” on that new field.

Ward 3 basketball courts are less in demand that they might be in Ward 8, for example. It’s a matter of local preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

+1. If for nothing else, for safety reasons. It's almost impossible to use the steps to Springland Lane in winter. And that block of 37th street is not at all well lit for folks commuting home from school in the evening.