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]Ft. Reno would be a substantially better location, and I say this as someone who lives EOTP and has no dog in the fight.  The Hearst site is too small to have a pool and maintain other uses, while Ft. Reno could accommodate a pool and still have room for two large soccer fields.  It is also closer to metro and would have a lot more sunshine, while a pool at Hearst would be very shaded.   [/quote]

Read a PP. People like a shaded area to sit at a pool. It is effing hot in the sun, which is why we need a pool, and why people like to be shaded in the summer.

NPS won't allow a pool on its property.

We have funding now for a pool at Hearst. There is simply no reason not to put it in.[/quote]

The shade is a non-issue.  The only trees that DPR is committed to saving are the very tall trees in the park, which are to the north of the pool site.  The smaller trees on the slopes, south and west of the pool will be removed.  One of the DGS people said that construction at the foot of the slopes and on the slope itself (the pool house and elevator will be set into the slope) will require most of those trees to come down.  So when the pool is constructed, it will be open to the south and west without the heavy screening of trees that exists today.  What is very shady today will be quite sunny then.[/quote]

This.  The trees on the edges are not great loss.[/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