Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Make no mistake, any pool will immediately turn into a draw for visitors from all Wards. Just like the spray parks at Livingston and Lafayette.

Have you seen a map of the outdoor pools in DC?

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

All of the other neighborhoods have outdoor pools already. Why would you assume people will be coming from far corners to this facility? And I haven't seen many beyond those in the community at the spraygrounds at Macomb, Turtle Park, Lafayette or Livingston.

I think this would be fantastic for the community.

I assume that people will come from elsewhere in the city to a nice, brand-new facility because that's what happens. Especially the nannies, but also parents. I assume this because this has been my observation while living in CCDC for the past 15 years.

And.... could you define "the community" ? what would say the boundaries of "the community" are, for example?

i don't live in ward 3, but i pay taxes too and am just as entitled to use a pool that's at hearst. sorry you don't consider me part of your "community"

+1. Hey Ms. CCDC just keep paying your dues at your private pool and you won't have to worry about swimming with lessera like me and my family from other wards. So your argument against a pool at Hearst is because it would attract other people from the city in which you've chosen to live? That is screwed up. Take a little time for self reflection

[Anonymous]

There really isn't any other place in Ward 3 to put the pool - Mary Cheh has been looking for years. It would take far too long (decades?) to get the federal government to play ball and transfer use of all or part of Fort Reno to DC. And the baseball lobby (Homerun Baseball and NW Little League) threatened to tie up the Turtle Park renovation for years if a pool was part of that renovation project (the pool would have required use of some of the baseball fields there). I actually wish it could be a Turtle Park, but am happy to get a Ward 3 pool so I don't have to drive down to Volta or Francis. Now let's hope DGS doesn't screw up the project too much!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putting the pool where soon-to-be-dismantled the portable classroom building is seems like a no-brainer. The Hearst park shelter can be retrofitted for changing rooms and the school parking lot can be used by swimming families during non-school hours. A win-win.

Except that land is DCPS' and is slated already for an outdoor amphitheater for the school. Building near the Historic Cottage sets off historic preservation issues as the school learned. I think that building the pool there is just not going to happen. Will have to happen on the lower field on DPR land. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Of course I might also suggest that all of you with ideas go to some of the planning meetings DPR will have, so you can convey your ideas and any concerns. I somehow doubt DPR will be reading this forum so if you want your opinion heard those planning meetings and forums will be the place to do it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting the pool where soon-to-be-dismantled the portable classroom building is seems like a no-brainer. The Hearst park shelter can be retrofitted for changing rooms and the school parking lot can be used by swimming families during non-school hours. A win-win.[/quTheote]

Except that land is DCPS' and is slated already for an outdoor amphitheater for the school. Building near the Historic Cottage sets off historic preservation issues as the school learned. I think that building the pool there is just not going to happen. Will have to happen on the lower field on DPR land. Sorry.

A better place for a pool might be on all that DC owned land behind the Second District police station on Idaho Ave near Wisconsin. There's plenty of room for parking, as well.

What bothers me about getting rid of the field at Hearst is that there are so few fields for all of the rec soccer and other teams to use. Groups and schools are twisted in pretzel knots, for example, to get access to Jelleff. On weekends, the Hearst field is used round the clock versus a pool that would be used 2-3 months out of the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Make no mistake, any pool will immediately turn into a draw for visitors from all Wards. Just like the spray parks at Livingston and Lafayette.

Have you seen a map of the outdoor pools in DC?

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

All of the other neighborhoods have outdoor pools already. Why would you assume people will be coming from far corners to this facility? And I haven't seen many beyond those in the community at the spraygrounds at Macomb, Turtle Park, Lafayette or Livingston.

I think this would be fantastic for the community.

I assume that people will come from elsewhere in the city to a nice, brand-new facility because that's what happens. Especially the nannies, but also parents. I assume this because this has been my observation while living in CCDC for the past 15 years.

And.... could you define "the community" ? what would say the boundaries of "the community" are, for example?

i don't live in ward 3, but i pay taxes too and am just as entitled to use a pool that's at hearst. sorry you don't consider me part of your "community"

+1. Hey Ms. CCDC just keep paying your dues at your private pool and you won't have to worry about swimming with lessera like me and my family from other wards. So your argument against a pool at Hearst is because it would attract other people from the city in which you've chosen to live? That is screwed up. Take a little time for self reflection

It's not necessary to get into the usual false fight about class, etc. (Has anyone brought up race yet? wait, wait!). But it is fair to say that the pool will draw users from around the city, just as Hearst school does, because (1) it will be brand new and (2) it will be perceived as "safe." Nothing wrong with that, but it does put a spotlight on finding enough offstreet parking for all of the users who will not be able to walk to the pool. This needs to be a critical part of the planning process, rather than ignored. It's just another piece to squeeze into a site that looks large enough but is really quite limited when you consider all of the various uses that DPR proposes to do there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awesome news! We participated in some of the community surveys, and would LOVE an outdoor park in that space. And I think the "community" in this case is the community of residents of Washington DC, all of whom are entitled to use the city's pools. Easy bus access via H buses and the 96/X3/30 buses on Wisconsin.

I'd also like to see a dog park -- there are a ton of people who run their dogs off-leash in the park, and it's a nuisance, especially when they do it just at the same time kids are on their way to school. So it would be great to see a fenced-in safe area for dog-owners.

What are your thoughts on where to put the dog park, along with the outdoor pool, bath/changing facilities, tennis courts, soccer field, parking, Hearst playground? It gets complicated, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
BTW, the "broad stretch" of 37th St. is likely to be reconfigured by DDOT (narrowed in places, speed bumps, curb extensions, raised crosswalks more parking restrictions), as part of the planning process to address the traffic from both Hearst and the expanded Sidwell campus. So don't assume that all of those parking spots will necessarily remain.

I thought Sidwell was taking most of their pick-up/drop-off traffic off 37th Street all together, thus removing the need to major alterations to 37th Street? Even so, speed humps wouldn't remove parking spots, and if there were narrowing, it could be where fire hydrants are already located.

Some, not all. And there will be many more car trips with the addition of the lower school. Sidwell wants to work with Hearst school to "fix" 37th, which is carrying more traffic this year because of a new traffic light that was installed at Idaho Ave near the new shopping center. It has changed traffic patterns and more drivers use 37th now to bypass part of Wisconsin. One other idea under consideration is to make the narrow part of 37th between Porter and Quebec one way, where it is very difficult for two cars to pass each other and to discourage the through traffic as the result of the light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Cleveland Park already has a community pool, at the Cleveland Park Club which is relatively inexpensive to join compared to most private pools.

The boundary for those who can join that pool and club is very small and exclusive. This is a public pool that would be open to the rest of us riff-raff.

The CPC pool is tiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Cleveland Park already has a community pool, at the Cleveland Park Club which is relatively inexpensive to join compared to most private pools.

The boundary for those who can join that pool and club is very small and exclusive. This is a public pool that would be open to the rest of us riff-raff.

The CPC pool is tiny.

How the the boundary "exclusive"? It includes McLean Gardens (which itself has a pool) as well as the apartment buildings along Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves. in the Cleveland Park area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Make no mistake, any pool will immediately turn into a draw for visitors from all Wards. Just like the spray parks at Livingston and Lafayette.

Have you seen a map of the outdoor pools in DC?

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

All of the other neighborhoods have outdoor pools already. Why would you assume people will be coming from far corners to this facility? And I haven't seen many beyond those in the community at the spraygrounds at Macomb, Turtle Park, Lafayette or Livingston.

I think this would be fantastic for the community.

I assume that people will come from elsewhere in the city to a nice, brand-new facility because that's what happens. Especially the nannies, but also parents. I assume this because this has been my observation while living in CCDC for the past 15 years.

And.... could you define "the community" ? what would say the boundaries of "the community" are, for example?

i don't live in ward 3, but i pay taxes too and am just as entitled to use a pool that's at hearst. sorry you don't consider me part of your "community"

+1. Hey Ms. CCDC just keep paying your dues at your private pool and you won't have to worry about swimming with lessera like me and my family from other wards. So your argument against a pool at Hearst is because it would attract other people from the city in which you've chosen to live? That is screwed up. Take a little time for self reflection

It's not necessary to get into the usual false fight about class, etc. (Has anyone brought up race yet? wait, wait!). But it is fair to say that the pool will draw users from around the city, just as Hearst school does, because (1) it will be brand new and (2) it will be perceived as "safe." Nothing wrong with that, but it does put a spotlight on finding enough offstreet parking for all of the users who will not be able to walk to the pool. This needs to be a critical part of the planning process, rather than ignored. It's just another piece to squeeze into a site that looks large enough but is really quite limited when you consider all of the various uses that DPR proposes to do there.

I'm sure parking would be easier at Hearst than Francis and maybe even Upsher. For those complaining about having families from all wards come into your neighborhood to use a CITY pool, I'm assuming you've never been to any other ward for a pool, summer camp, park, or splash park right?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Make no mistake, any pool will immediately turn into a draw for visitors from all Wards. Just like the spray parks at Livingston and Lafayette.

Have you seen a map of the outdoor pools in DC?

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

All of the other neighborhoods have outdoor pools already. Why would you assume people will be coming from far corners to this facility? And I haven't seen many beyond those in the community at the spraygrounds at Macomb, Turtle Park, Lafayette or Livingston.

I think this would be fantastic for the community.

I assume that people will come from elsewhere in the city to a nice, brand-new facility because that's what happens. Especially the nannies, but also parents. I assume this because this has been my observation while living in CCDC for the past 15 years.

And.... could you define "the community" ? what would say the boundaries of "the community" are, for example?

i don't live in ward 3, but i pay taxes too and am just as entitled to use a pool that's at hearst. sorry you don't consider me part of your "community"

+1. Hey Ms. CCDC just keep paying your dues at your private pool and you won't have to worry about swimming with lessera like me and my family from other wards. So your argument against a pool at Hearst is because it would attract other people from the city in which you've chosen to live? That is screwed up. Take a little time for self reflection

It's not necessary to get into the usual false fight about class, etc. (Has anyone brought up race yet? wait, wait!). But it is fair to say that the pool will draw users from around the city, just as Hearst school does, because (1) it will be brand new and (2) it will be perceived as "safe." Nothing wrong with that, but it does put a spotlight on finding enough offstreet parking for all of the users who will not be able to walk to the pool. This needs to be a critical part of the planning process, rather than ignored. It's just another piece to squeeze into a site that looks large enough but is really quite limited when you consider all of the various uses that DPR proposes to do there.

I'm sure parking would be easier at Hearst than Francis and maybe even Upsher. For those complaining about having families from all wards come into your neighborhood to use a CITY pool, I'm assuming you've never been to any other ward for a pool, summer camp, park, or splash park right?!

Rose Park in Georgetown is Ward 2, right? So there you go.

[Anonymous]

The pool at Wilson is a city pool. They've had a lot of trouble with thefts there, however. It would be a good place for some undercover police attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Make no mistake, any pool will immediately turn into a draw for visitors from all Wards. Just like the spray parks at Livingston and Lafayette.

Have you seen a map of the outdoor pools in DC?

http://app.dpr.dc.gov/dprmap/index.asp?group=5&query=AND{%277%27.EX.%27Outdoor%20Pool%27}

All of the other neighborhoods have outdoor pools already. Why would you assume people will be coming from far corners to this facility? And I haven't seen many beyond those in the community at the spraygrounds at Macomb, Turtle Park, Lafayette or Livingston.

I think this would be fantastic for the community.

I assume that people will come from elsewhere in the city to a nice, brand-new facility because that's what happens. Especially the nannies, but also parents. I assume this because this has been my observation while living in CCDC for the past 15 years.

And.... could you define "the community" ? what would say the boundaries of "the community" are, for example?

i don't live in ward 3, but i pay taxes too and am just as entitled to use a pool that's at hearst. sorry you don't consider me part of your "community"

+1. Hey Ms. CCDC just keep paying your dues at your private pool and you won't have to worry about swimming with lessera like me and my family from other wards. So your argument against a pool at Hearst is because it would attract other people from the city in which you've chosen to live? That is screwed up. Take a little time for self reflection

It's not necessary to get into the usual false fight about class, etc. (Has anyone brought up race yet? wait, wait!). But it is fair to say that the pool will draw users from around the city, just as Hearst school does, because (1) it will be brand new and (2) it will be perceived as "safe." Nothing wrong with that, but it does put a spotlight on finding enough offstreet parking for all of the users who will not be able to walk to the pool. This needs to be a critical part of the planning process, rather than ignored. It's just another piece to squeeze into a site that looks large enough but is really quite limited when you consider all of the various uses that DPR proposes to do there.

I'm sure parking would be easier at Hearst than Francis and maybe even Upsher. For those complaining about having families from all wards come into your neighborhood to use a CITY pool, I'm assuming you've never been to any other ward for a pool, summer camp, park, or splash park right?!

They can probably expand the Hearst school parking lot for pool use.

[Anonymous]

I think you all are way overestimating demand for the pool. Look at the map that was posted before. Just because the pool would be new doesn't mean it would be worth driving, busing or biking to it. This is a convenience for residents of the District who don't have easy access to the many pools everywhere else.