Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

or give up their tennis courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when."

That works both ways. A big green space provides amenities to a very broad population, not just the people who live in the immediate neighborhood. I suspect a pool would be most heavily used by the people within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that a pool is a better use than a park. This debate continues to be defined by the allegedly narrow concerns of a few neighbors. But there are broader issues that reflect the environmental and historic values of a broader population. The District is undergoing a massive change with a scaling up buildings which are getting taller. Mary Cheh has a vision of a more dense city Ward 3 and she is getting it. But that increased density is all the more reason to preserve the very few wide open green spaces that exist and not covering them with hard scape.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

700,000 new trees in just a five year period is just "some progress" to you? Really?

You should really review Casey Trees' annual report card on DC's tree canopy. The 2016 report is particularly pertinent to Hearst, advocating that DC should place priority on preserving and enhancing the tree canopy in city-owned parks and other green spaces; putting conservation easements on DC parks to preserve mature tree canopy; and strengthening protections against removal of "special" (i.e., large diameter, mature canopy) trees. While the report lauds efforts to plant new, smaller trees, it notes that that many are poorly maintained, will take years to create a meaningful canopy and are no substitute for the preservation of existing mature tree canopy.

"Simply said, trees make parks more enjoyable, increase their use, reduce upkeep needs, and help the city achieve its 40 percent tree canopy goal. Parks are a viable and practical solution for re-treeing D.C."

http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treereportcard/

[Anonymous]

Another pool is nice to have, but it seems that unless people are willing to build it smack in the middle of the soccer field, Hearst is just to small and problematic a site (including with the mature tree challenges). It's probably time for Mary Cheh to get out her map and measuring tape and start over.

[Anonymous]

You know, I used to be pro-pool, but without a real proposal it is impossible to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when."

That works both ways. A big green space provides amenities to a very broad population, not just the people who live in the immediate neighborhood. I suspect a pool would be most heavily used by the people within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that a pool is a better use than a park. This debate continues to be defined by the allegedly narrow concerns of a few neighbors. But there are broader issues that reflect the environmental and historic values of a broader population. The District is undergoing a massive change with a scaling up buildings which are getting taller. Mary Cheh has a vision of a more dense city Ward 3 and she is getting it. But that increased density is all the more reason to preserve the very few wide open green spaces that exist and not covering them with hard scape.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

700,000 new trees in just a five year period is just "some progress" to you? Really?

You should really review Casey Trees' annual report card on DC's tree canopy. The 2016 report is particularly pertinent to Hearst, advocating that DC should place priority on preserving and enhancing the tree canopy in city-owned parks and other green spaces; putting conservation easements on DC parks to preserve mature tree canopy; and strengthening protections against removal of "special" (i.e., large diameter, mature canopy) trees. While the report lauds efforts to plant new, smaller trees, it notes that that many are poorly maintained, will take years to create a meaningful canopy and are no substitute for the preservation of existing mature tree canopy.

"Simply said, trees make parks more enjoyable, increase their use, reduce upkeep needs, and help the city achieve its 40 percent tree canopy goal. Parks are a viable and practical solution for re-treeing D.C."

http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treereportcard/

By any metric DC is one of the most heavily forested cities in the country. And the number of trees is going up every year. If you think your sacred oaks are going to stop the pool you are delusional. Residents who make ridiculous claims to stop development ultimately will lose their seat at the table. And then they will get a homeless shelter built next to them.

[Anonymous]

Trying to preserve trees in DC that already has a crazy amount of trees and green space cannot always be the #1 priority.
I understand that neighbors in the area will have a knee jerk reaction against the pool but the most appropriate location in ward 3 cannot be voided due to the feelings of 50-100 people who want to preserve their own private green space.
You guys have time to sell and move if you hate the idea of more people visiting your neck of the woods.

[Anonymous]

The residents of Palisades did not want to designate their park historic. However, their park is in a corner of the ward, not centrally located.

Residents of AU Park wanted a pool at Turtle Park, but the baseball lobby trumped them.

Jelleff is just over the Ward 3 line in Ward 2, but for most residents of Ward 3, it is more than a 5 minute drive.

Hearst on the other hand is a 4 minute walk from my house, less if you are counting the school grounds.

[Anonymous]

If you look at an aerial map of Ward 3, in addition to the public courts (there are also a bunch of courts at UDC), there are also a ton of private courts at the various schools (which have private clubs etc).

Most of the courts sit unused for all but a few hours or days each year. Talk about wasted space.

[Anonymous]

If the pool can be put into the area of a single tennis court and there are so many tennis courts available, why is the search focused solely on Hearst??? Let's look at all the tennis courts in Ward 3 before settle on Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the pool can be put into the area of a single tennis court and there are so many tennis courts available, why is the search focused solely on Hearst??? Let's look at all the tennis courts in Ward 3 before settle on Hearst.

It's people like you who are killing Cleveland Park. Is there any neighborhood in America that support a Starbucks? Enjoy your lamp and vacuum store while the rest of us are at the pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at an aerial map of Ward 3, in addition to the public courts (there are also a bunch of courts at UDC), there are also a ton of private courts at the various schools (which have private clubs etc).

Most of the courts sit unused for all but a few hours or days each year. Talk about wasted space.

Thank your zoning board for that.

For about a decade the policy of the DC Zoning Board has been to require that when private schools seek a zoning variance to build athletic facilities, one of the stipulations of the variance is that they can only be used by students and employees of the school. So we have massive duplication of facilities, and facilities that sit vacant just about all of the time.

The irony is that the schools are much better equipped to handle public use of their facilities than DPR is. The zoning board insists that schools have adequate parking, and traffic management plans -- neither of which are required of DPR. So not only do we have athletic facilities that are sitting unused, we also have huge parking lots and garages that are often unused as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
too bad Palisades was quick to object to a pool by getting an historic designation. You see so many tennis courts then move the pool there. remember, a pool is not just a physical pool. There's changing locations, there's mandatory fencing, there's equipment. A "pool" takes up more surface area than a lot of people choose to remember during debates. There's just not that space at Hearst. Take away the fields at Turtle Park if you're so desperate for a pool. Or, gasp! drive to Jelleff.

The historic designation at Palisades was not driven by the neighboring community. Any ANC commissioner can file a historic preservation nomination, the nomination for Palisades was filed by an ANC commissioner from Ward 1.

Palisades is going through a similar process as Hearst right now, with a big budget for renovating the rec center and a lot of concern among neighbors about what the outcome is going to be. Historic preservation is generally viewed as a bad thing because it limits the options. Of late, DPR and DGS have taken to claiming that historic preservation is the reason the new rec center needs to be several times larger than what most people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when."

That works both ways. A big green space provides amenities to a very broad population, not just the people who live in the immediate neighborhood. I suspect a pool would be most heavily used by the people within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that a pool is a better use than a park. This debate continues to be defined by the allegedly narrow concerns of a few neighbors. But there are broader issues that reflect the environmental and historic values of a broader population. The District is undergoing a massive change with a scaling up buildings which are getting taller. Mary Cheh has a vision of a more dense city Ward 3 and she is getting it. But that increased density is all the more reason to preserve the very few wide open green spaces that exist and not covering them with hard scape.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

700,000 new trees in just a five year period is just "some progress" to you? Really?

You should really review Casey Trees' annual report card on DC's tree canopy. The 2016 report is particularly pertinent to Hearst, advocating that DC should place priority on preserving and enhancing the tree canopy in city-owned parks and other green spaces; putting conservation easements on DC parks to preserve mature tree canopy; and strengthening protections against removal of "special" (i.e., large diameter, mature canopy) trees. While the report lauds efforts to plant new, smaller trees, it notes that that many are poorly maintained, will take years to create a meaningful canopy and are no substitute for the preservation of existing mature tree canopy.

"Simply said, trees make parks more enjoyable, increase their use, reduce upkeep needs, and help the city achieve its 40 percent tree canopy goal. Parks are a viable and practical solution for re-treeing D.C."

http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treereportcard/

By any metric DC is one of the most heavily forested cities in the country. And the number of trees is going up every year. If you think your sacred oaks are going to stop the pool you are delusional. Residents who make ridiculous claims to stop development ultimately will lose their seat at the table. And then they will get a homeless shelter built next to them.

Thus spake the "MLT" Greater Greater Washington view of DC affairs.

After citing Casey Trees, the PP proceeds to discount them when their latest report places a premium on preserving mature canopy in DC parks. But at least s/he inow s being more honest: there's a clear tradeoff between a building pool and surrounding concrete-scape and preserving the leafy green character of Hearst Park.

[Anonymous]

typo correction: s/he is now being more honest...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the pool can be put into the area of a single tennis court and there are so many tennis courts available, why is the search focused solely on Hearst??? Let's look at all the tennis courts in Ward 3 before settle on Hearst.

It's people like you who are killing Cleveland Park. Is there any neighborhood in America that support a Starbucks? Enjoy your lamp and vacuum store while the rest of us are at the pool.

Cathedral Crap-ons has two Starbucks: a regular one and a sketchy Giant one.