Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is sacrosanct ground for Hearst school which is a jewel which belongs to all of the diverse peoples of the a District of Columbia, not your white enclave in Ward 3.

1. Thanks for injecting race into this issue - (we were really missing that element in the civil discussion)

2. No part of Hearst should be eliminated from planning. Every sign on the playground says DPR on it so it is up for grabs in a discussion about the park's future.

3. Planners at last weekend's meeting enthusiastically included broadening the scope of the plan to include the current playground in lists of future considerations.

4. No DPR grounds are sacrosanct - don't ask people to cut down historic trees, accept major construction projects, turf over green space with plastic carpets and declare a playground on the same property as "sacrosanct."

Both Hearst playgrounds could use a serious facelift. But, to think they would touch a $1M+ plus turf soccer field that is only 2 years old is unlikely, even by DC standards of waste and fraud.

And to think they would take away playspace from the school is pretty unlikely as well. I highly doubt the pool will be anywhere on the upper space unless it is maybe on the basketball court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both Hearst playgrounds could use a serious facelift. But, to think they would touch a $1M+ plus turf soccer field that is only 2 years old is unlikely, even by DC standards of waste and fraud.

Who said anything about the turf field?There is the basketball court - which is the most logical place for a pool and, of course, the playground itself.

Why this pool proposal was not included in the original renovation of the playground, I will never understand.

Putting the pool where the BBall courts are could require moving the loading dock and trash pickup for the school to the Upton Street street side. Want to keep having this conversation?

[Anonymous]

Putting the pool where the BBall courts are could require moving the loading dock and trash pickup for the school to the Upton Street street side. Want to keep having this conversation?

Totally disagree. Depends on the size of the pool.

[Anonymous]

Upton Street and Iadho Ave is where the loading docks and school access should have gone in the first place. Ironic that most of the people fighting that fight have since sold their houses and moved.

Yes, let's make the project as it should have been in the first place. Opening up the driveway and parking would make a huge difference in site planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upton Street and Iadho Ave is where the loading docks and school access should have gone in the first place. Ironic that most of the people fighting that fight have since sold their houses and moved.

Yes, let's make the project as it should have been in the first place. Opening up the driveway and parking would make a huge difference in site planning.

+1. If the immediate neighbors want to protest, they should be prepared for all options to be on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is sacrosanct ground for Hearst school which is a jewel which belongs to all of the diverse peoples of the a District of Columbia, not your white enclave in Ward 3.

1. Thanks for injecting race into this issue - (we were really missing that element in the civil discussion)

2. No part of Hearst should be eliminated from planning. Every sign on the playground says DPR on it so it is up for grabs in a discussion about the park's future.

3. Planners at last weekend's meeting enthusiastically included broadening the scope of the plan to include the current playground in lists of future considerations.

4. No DPR grounds are sacrosanct - don't ask people to cut down historic trees, accept major construction projects, turf over green space with plastic carpets and declare a playground on the same property as "sacrosanct."

Both Hearst playgrounds could use a serious facelift. But, to think they would touch a $1M+ plus turf soccer field that is only 2 years old is unlikely, even by DC standards of waste and fraud.

And to think they would take away playspace from the school is pretty unlikely as well. I highly doubt the pool will be anywhere on the upper space unless it is maybe on the basketball court.

If one had to sacrifice anything, lose the basketball court. One thing that DC has is plenty of basketball courts.

[Anonymous]

So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

[Anonymous]

The Northwest Current article from yesterday makes the Hearst pool proposal seem like a clown circus. DPR and GSA went out of their way to state that they didn't choose the Hearst site for a pool. Mary Cheh suggested it was unnamed agencies who selected Hearst. Moreover, estimates are that a pool, deck and pool house/infrastructure could require 2 acres, yet only 4 acres of the Hearst site are considered developable. A Cheh clown circus indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Of course, the kids deserve a playground (although there is other space around the school). And the neighbors deserve tennis courts and a shady park. And the Stoddert soccer players deserve a field. Somethings gotta' give. At the end of the day, it may be the pool itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Reluctantly, I've decided that I don't support a pool. There's just no room without removing some other major park use.

[Anonymous]

Let's be clear. Stoddert soccer doesn't deserve a single thing. Soccer players may want and need a field but let's please keep Stoddert out of this. They have been behind an effort to destroy the field with plastic wrap for a decade. Their initial proposal was to put a big fence around the field to block it from use other than soccer.

[Anonymous]

So let's remove the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Of course, the kids deserve a playground (although there is other space around the school). And the neighbors deserve tennis courts and a shady park. And the Stoddert soccer players deserve a field. Somethings gotta' give. At the end of the day, it may be the pool itself.

me too. it's not just Stoddert. The Hearst Rec T Ball and other rec teams use those fields as do the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Of course, the kids deserve a playground (although there is other space around the school). And the neighbors deserve tennis courts and a shady park. And the Stoddert soccer players deserve a field. Somethings gotta' give. At the end of the day, it may be the pool itself.

me too. it's not just Stoddert. The Hearst Rec T Ball and other rec teams use those fields as do the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec.

Agree. A pool is unlikely. It's pretty clear that Cheh and her staff just selected the park without any planning and analysis. At least someone could have used a long tape measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you all support having a pool within, what 200 feet of the school? And the outhouses and the pool equipment? So kids at school don't deserve a playground?

DPR has been very clear that the upper portion is off limits.

Of course, the kids deserve a playground (although there is other space around the school). And the neighbors deserve tennis courts and a shady park. And the Stoddert soccer players deserve a field. Somethings gotta' give. At the end of the day, it may be the pool itself.

me too. it's not just Stoddert. The Hearst Rec T Ball and other rec teams use those fields as do the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec.

Who are the kids who attend aftercare at the Rec. ? I don't know of anyone in North Cleveland park who uses that program. It's hard to see where the demand comes from.