Hearst Playground story in Current

[Anonymous]

We are a family that lies nearby and would probably use the outdoor pool. I think an outdoor pool is great for recreation and kids, while the great indoor one we have at Wilson is better for exercise. That being said, there is something to be said for spaces in the neighborhood not heavily used. There are worse things than one pair of players on a court on a mid-summer, evening, an open stretch of lumpy grassland, pockets of quiet and repose. How often do you get that in city living? They could put an amusement park in Central Park, but they would be losing something important.


I was in Columbia Heights the other night and the main strip, which developed overnight, looked so junky and poorly maintained. I'm coming to appreciate the plodding pace of 'development' in CP and Tenleytown. If anything, I'd like us to focus on beautifying Main Street (Wisconsin) to make it more charming, and leave the rest alone. These recent authorizations to raise density and traffic in the residential areas (GDS, Sidwell, Homeless Shelter, Pool, new apartment building with no parking on Wisconsin as per green directives) are adding up, and I am not seeing much of a prcess being followed that takes into consideration the views of the neighbors impacted, or the overall neighborhood impact.

[Anonymous]

There would have been a process, but people even fought doing that about 15 years ago. So now we have the hodgepodge that we have.

[Anonymous]

Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are a family that lies nearby and would probably use the outdoor pool. I think an outdoor pool is great for recreation and kids, while the great indoor one we have at Wilson is better for exercise. That being said, there is something to be said for spaces in the neighborhood not heavily used. There are worse things than one pair of players on a court on a mid-summer, evening, an open stretch of lumpy grassland, pockets of quiet and repose. How often do you get that in city living? They could put an amusement park in Central Park, but they would be losing something important.


I was in Columbia Heights the other night and the main strip, which developed overnight, looked so junky and poorly maintained. I'm coming to appreciate the plodding pace of 'development' in CP and Tenleytown. If anything, I'd like us to focus on beautifying Main Street (Wisconsin) to make it more charming, and leave the rest alone. These recent authorizations to raise density and traffic in the residential areas (GDS, Sidwell, Homeless Shelter, Pool, new apartment building with no parking on Wisconsin as per green directives) are adding up, and I am not seeing much of a prcess being followed that takes into consideration the views of the neighbors impacted, or the overall neighborhood impact.

+1 -- well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is 0-1 courts being used in the evening "heavily used?"


As t the field, it is in awful shape no matter how much DPR puts into it. It is closed when it rains and a group of men don't play on it heavier than a group of kids. That is an ignorant statement.

All fields are closed when it rains heavily. That's not unique to Hearst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no plan.

She and/or her staff directed DPR to put a pool in Hearst park and allocated the money to build one.

So now DPR has to make a pool happen.

Had she put money in the budget to determine the feasibility of a pool at Hearst park and a couple other locations people might be more sanguine. But that isn't what's happening. [/quote

I know this would be very difficult for an inflated ego like Professor Cheh, but she should admit that she goofed. There was no feasibility study, no analysis of a pool at Hearst. It's obvious that it won't fit unless other valued park uses are sacrificed. Admit the mistake, do a feasibility analysis of possible alternative sites (if any good sites really exist) and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

Public property and public usage do not garner the same neighborhood entitlement as private development and private space usage. The immediate neighbors do not get to mandate how public space is programed. The city has an obligation to provide services to residents throughout the city. They have identified a need for outdoor public pools west of Rock Creek Park and north of Georgetown. Hearst happens to have a location that meets that criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no plan.

She and/or her staff directed DPR to put a pool in Hearst park and allocated the money to build one.

So now DPR has to make a pool happen.

Had she put money in the budget to determine the feasibility of a pool at Hearst park and a couple other locations people might be more sanguine. But that isn't what's happening. [/quote

I know this would be very difficult for an inflated ego like Professor Cheh, but she should admit that she goofed. There was no feasibility study, no analysis of a pool at Hearst. It's obvious that it won't fit unless other valued park uses are sacrificed. Admit the mistake, do a feasibility analysis of possible alternative sites (if any good sites really exist) and move on.

Alternative sites:

Palisades: not centrally located.
Friendship Park: baseball lobby rejected a pool over the desires of the residents who wanted one
Chevy Chase Rec Center: Could possibly put one there, but like Palisades, is not that centrally located
Lafayette Rec Center: Could possibly put one there
Chesapeake Rec Center: Too small
Macomb Rec Center: Too small
Hardy Rec Center: Too close to Volta and other Ward 3 facilities

What other options would you suggest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

Public property and public usage do not garner the same neighborhood entitlement as private development and private space usage. The immediate neighbors do not get to mandate how public space is programed. The city has an obligation to provide services to residents throughout the city. They have identified a need for outdoor public pools west of Rock Creek Park and north of Georgetown. Hearst happens to have a location that meets that criteria.

Please explain how. DPR personnel have said that they did not select the location. There has been no feasibility study. There was no formal analysis of various possible sites. If there is a preliminary site plan, no one wants to release it, probably because it means the elimination of the soccer field, the tennis courts, the upper playground or the tree canopy -- and likely some combination of the them.

[Anonymous]

Can't DC find a location for a public pool that is more transit accessible? Hearst is about a mile walk from the closest Metro station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't DC find a location for a public pool that is more transit accessible? Hearst is about a mile walk from the closest Metro station.

If only there we 4 or 5 different bus lines that connected the pool directly to the metro. If only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't DC find a location for a public pool that is more transit accessible? Hearst is about a mile walk from the closest Metro station.

Why? The other neighborhoods across DC have their own outdoor pools. Why would someone need to take a metro to Tenleytown to use an outdoor pool when the likely have one within a mile of where they live. This isn't a city wide destination faciilty, this is a neighborhood serving facility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

Public property and public usage do not garner the same neighborhood entitlement as private development and private space usage. The immediate neighbors do not get to mandate how public space is programed. The city has an obligation to provide services to residents throughout the city. They have identified a need for outdoor public pools west of Rock Creek Park and north of Georgetown. Hearst happens to have a location that meets that criteria.

Please explain how. DPR personnel have said that they did not select the location. There has been no feasibility study. There was no formal analysis of various possible sites. If there is a preliminary site plan, no one wants to release it, probably because it means the elimination of the soccer field, the tennis courts, the upper playground or the tree canopy -- and likely some combination of the them.

Someone posted a few pages back a strategic plan for DPR that indicated the need for at least two outdoor pools needed west of Rock Creek Park. I was responding as such. I have no idea what, if any, analysis went in to selecting Hearst as one of those sites. Even if there were zero analysis, DPR has previously indicated the need and Hearst fits the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't DC find a location for a public pool that is more transit accessible? Hearst is about a mile walk from the closest Metro station.

Why? The other neighborhoods across DC have their own outdoor pools. Why would someone need to take a metro to Tenleytown to use an outdoor pool when the likely have one within a mile of where they live. This isn't a city wide destination faciilty, this is a neighborhood serving facility.

First, the pool is intended to be primarily a ward 3 facility, not a neighborhood pool. It is secondarily designed to serve all of the residents of the District of Columbia. If the pool is built and once it is open, it will be perceived as both new and "safe", which likely means that DC residents from outside the ward will want to use it, too. That's why transit use is important. Moreover, because there will be no off-street parking, DC will want to encourage transit use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then we need a process - where is the ANC on this? Isn't that supposed to be where these things are evaluated with public hearings? How are things getting authorized directly by Mayor/council/councilmembers?

I'd like to know what the process was for each of the instances I elaborated above. Guessing some went through lengthier vetting (like the apartment building with no parking/such a mistake in my books) while some didn't-like the homeless shelter.

Public property and public usage do not garner the same neighborhood entitlement as private development and private space usage. The immediate neighbors do not get to mandate how public space is programed. The city has an obligation to provide services to residents throughout the city. They have identified a need for outdoor public pools west of Rock Creek Park and north of Georgetown. Hearst happens to have a location that meets that criteria.

Please explain how. DPR personnel have said that they did not select the location. There has been no feasibility study. There was no formal analysis of various possible sites. If there is a preliminary site plan, no one wants to release it, probably because it means the elimination of the soccer field, the tennis courts, the upper playground or the tree canopy -- and likely some combination of the them.

Someone posted a few pages back a strategic plan for DPR that indicated the need for at least two outdoor pools needed west of Rock Creek Park. I was responding as such. I have no idea what, if any, analysis went in to selecting Hearst as one of those sites. Even if there were zero analysis, DPR has previously indicated the need and Hearst fits the bill.

Exactly how? The park size is constrained and siting a pool will involve the removal of existing park facilities and features.