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=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.[/quote]

If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.[/quote]

And so what?  A pool where the tennis courts are would not impact the soccer field.

In any case 34 hours a week of use is not much - some parks are utilized 7 days a week including into the evening if they have lights.[/quote]

But it obviously would impact the tennis courts.  And then where would you put them?  Why, take a portion of the field, naturally.  Hearst is a small park, certainly compared to Turtle Park which is like three times its size.  Adding a pool is like squeezing a balloon.  Something's got to give.  DPR has been very reticent (some might say obfuscatory with their "dimensionless" plans) to state what will have to be sacrificed at Hearst if a pool is squeezed in there.[/quote]

Hearst is not a small park - not sure why we have to keep going over this though I'm starting to wonder if some neighbors think this because they never go to Hearst of any other DPR facilities.  I do and can tell you Hearst is actually pretty big and also underutilized by DPR standards.

And no one has ever said that there won't be trade-offs.  The lightly used tennis courts will almost certainly have to be moved.  And maybe there will be fewer tennis courts.  But so what - a pool will result in greatly more people using this park and this is a good thing and something DPR should be working towards regardless of the baseless objections of the immediate neighbors.[/quote]

Unless the tennis courts are moved to where the basketball court is on the upper terrace, then they will have to go where the large field is.  This will result in shrinkage of the large field to a smaller field.[/quote]

There is plenty of room for the tennis courts elsewhere inside of Hearst.  The neighbors endlessly complain about the accuracy of the pool size estimates but you can see from the DPR slides or any satellite shot of the park exactly how large a tennis court is and the spaces where you could fit them and there is plenty of room.  I'm not sure why DPR should spend money on new tennis courts when the existing ones are lightly used but if that is a priority it isn't hard to do.
[/quote]r

DPR's plan showed that new tennis courts would go on part of the footprint of the existing field.

Look, I get that you don't value tennis, but it seems foolish to substitute a facility that will be used only three months per year for an existing one that is used eight months per year.  [/quote]

I don't value tennis even though I grew up playing it.

But my opinion is colored by my observations from spending a lot of time at DPR facilities and I mean a lot time - I'm 7 years into having 2 kids playing baseball and soccer and have been all over the city at DPR facilities and the tennis courts are never fully utilized.  It isn't just Hearst - it is Palisades, Turtle Park, Volta, Chevy Chase Park, Fort Reno, Fort Stevens, Rose, Lafayette etc.  It is rare that I ever see all of the courts being used and common that none of the courts are being used.  In fact the first 3 years my eldest was playing and I had to pass the game time with the youngest we always passed it on the tennis courts because it was often the only part of the park that was not in use so that was where we could find space to hit some balls or kick around the soccer ball.

There is some institutional DPR inertia here - DPR has always provided these courts so they are going to be inclined to continue providing them.

But we have lots and lots of tennis courts in Ward 3 despite the lack of use (the courts at 39th and Newark and the courts at Fort Reno are within comfortable walking distance of Hearst) so what does it matter if the pool would only be in use 3 months out of the year if it is replacing such a light usage.

Rather than respond to me have a look at the tennis courts at various DPR facilities and let me know how often they are being utilized and try to justify the DPR dedication to that recreational space?  And the discussion should probably go beyond replacing tennis courts at one park with a pool - as an example the Palisades skate park gets very heavy usage by tweens while again the tennis courts in the same park sit unused yet DPR isn't proactively thinking about better uses for its limited land.[/quote]

The courts at 39th and Newark are going to be used for "temporary" parking for DC vehicles while the homeless shelter at Cathedral Commons and a parking garage are being constructed.  They may never return, as their reconstruction no doubt will depend on a special appropriation in the out years.  However, the area behind the new homeless shelter might be perfect for a pool, and would enable it to serve Ward 3's least fortunate.[/quote]

It might be perfect for a pool.

Or we can put the pool in a perfectly suitable location that is available now and doesn't depend on X, Y and Z going perfectly to work.[/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