Reply to Hearst Playground story in Current

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Hearst Playground story in Current"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]

Fort Reno definitely isn't in Cleveland Park.[/quote]

A distinction without much difference - you may not want to admit this but surely you know that CP and TT border one another and that Hearst Park is comfortably within walking distance of Fort Reno?[/quote]

All the more reason to locate a pool the central, Metro-accessible Wilson/Fort Reno area.[/quote]

[b]Why does a neighborhood pool need to be metro accessible?
[/b]
No one is taking a metro to go for a swim on a hot day.[/quote]

I didn't realize that the proposed Hearst pool really is intended just to be a neighborhood pool for North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills West, Van Ness or whatever that area is called.  The pool has been touted as a recreational facility for Ward 3, which among DC wards arguably is deprived for not having a public outdoor pool in the ward.  If that's the case, and given that not everyone lives within walking distance or can drive, isn't it logical to locate a ward-wide resource somewhat centrally in the ward, ideally near other concentrations of activity and especially near a a major public transportation node?  Ward 3 has five Metro stops, and Fort Reno is centrally located within a short distance of one of the middle ones, and also adjacent to the District's largest middle and high schools.  Fort Reno is adjacent to the crossing of two of the ward's two major axes, the Wisconsin and Nebraska corridors.

Finally, a Metro-accessible pool allows other users from outside the ward elsewhere in the District to reach the pool more easily.  The pool, after all, is a resource that should belong to all District residents.[/quote]

The talk of a "Ward 3 pool" just isn't persuasive. Ward boundaries are just imaginary lines on a map, and they move. Chevy Chase is Ward 4 but used to be Ward 3, and Palisades is Ward 3 but used to Ward 2. Would a pool at Chevy Chase not serve Ward 3 because it's in Ward 4? Does a pool at Hearst serve people in Palisades better than pools at Jelleff or Volta simply because they don't have to cross a ward boundary to get there? It's not like we have passport controls between the wards.

The DPR Master Facilities Plan called for every DC resident to be within one mile of an outdoor pool. For most residents west of Rock Creek that is not currently the case. The plan pointed out that two new pools, one near Ward Circle and one near Chevy Chase, would put almost the entire area within a one-mile radius. A pool at Hearst does not accomplish that; rather it splits the area into smaller northern and southern zones that are still not served.[/quote]

Hearst is less than a mile from Ward Circle. I have no idea what you are talking about. A pool at Hearst totally helps address the pool void west of Rock Creek regardless of ward boundaries.[/quote]

Actually, it's more.  1.2 miles is the nearest Google route, all by or along streets, as there's no 'as the crow flies' trail.  The point is, DPR wanted to locate pools pretty centrally, certainly near some the largest concentrations of families with children (and that doesn't get any denser than AU Park).  Of course, a Fort Reno location is between AU Park and Chevy Chase, and really convenient for Metro, buses and parking.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics