Why not put the tennis courts up by the Hearst school where the trailer used to be? Safer than a pool adjacent to the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite Miss Cheh's good faith intentions, there's unlikely to be a swimming pool built at Hearst. Frequent park visitors know that there's no room for a pool without tearing out existing facilities like the soccer field, playground and tennis courts. As each of those uses has its own strong constituency, it's hard to see how DPR would destroy any of them for the pool. Then there are those (who may overlap with some users in the first three groups), who don't want to see Hearst altered by loss of the lawns and canopy tree cover. Hearst may be a nice spot for a pool in theory, but one just isn't going to fit without huge sacrifices.

What strong constituency for the tennis courts? I was very careful to notice the usages since following this thread earlier this summer. There was NEVER a time since April that we were at the part that more than one court was being used, and most of the time, they were totally empty. That is a waste of space. Besides, there are unused courts at UDC (5), Turtle Park (3) and Livingston (2), not to mention at the Police station (3).

Why is it not ok for people to drive or take public transportation to a pool available only 3 months a year, but it's fine to force people to give up existing neighborhood tennis courts and then have to drive to other neighborhoods?

+1. This argument continues to appear on this thread. It's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:The other issue is Stoddert soccer's plan to have DC pay millions of dollars to cover a natural field with plastic. That's a non-starter too.

Whether grass or artifical turf, they are likely to lose much of the field if DC builds a pool at Hearst.

The other issue is Stoddert soccer's plan to have DC pay millions of dollars to cover a natural field with plastic. That's a non-starter too.

Anonymous wrote:It's also indoor.

But it's also available year-round. It seems boneheaded to lose a playing field that is used 7 0r 8 months out of the year, as well as tennis courts that are used almost as long, for a facility that will be open (assuming adequate operating funding year to year) at most 3 months out of the year.

It's also indoor.

What's wrong with Wilson pool? It's close to "North Cleveland Park."

No one uses the courts, and UDC and the police station are both walking distance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite Miss Cheh's good faith intentions, there's unlikely to be a swimming pool built at Hearst. Frequent park visitors know that there's no room for a pool without tearing out existing facilities like the soccer field, playground and tennis courts. As each of those uses has its own strong constituency, it's hard to see how DPR would destroy any of them for the pool. Then there are those (who may overlap with some users in the first three groups), who don't want to see Hearst altered by loss of the lawns and canopy tree cover. Hearst may be a nice spot for a pool in theory, but one just isn't going to fit without huge sacrifices.

What strong constituency for the tennis courts? I was very careful to notice the usages since following this thread earlier this summer. There was NEVER a time since April that we were at the part that more than one court was being used, and most of the time, they were totally empty. That is a waste of space. Besides, there are unused courts at UDC (5), Turtle Park (3) and Livingston (2), not to mention at the Police station (3).

Why is it not ok for people to drive or take public transportation to a pool available only 3 months a year, but it's fine to force people to give up existing neighborhood tennis courts and then have to drive to other neighborhoods?

Anonymous wrote:Despite Miss Cheh's good faith intentions, there's unlikely to be a swimming pool built at Hearst. Frequent park visitors know that there's no room for a pool without tearing out existing facilities like the soccer field, playground and tennis courts. As each of those uses has its own strong constituency, it's hard to see how DPR would destroy any of them for the pool. Then there are those (who may overlap with some users in the first three groups), who don't want to see Hearst altered by loss of the lawns and canopy tree cover. Hearst may be a nice spot for a pool in theory, but one just isn't going to fit without huge sacrifices.

What strong constituency for the tennis courts? I was very careful to notice the usages since following this thread earlier this summer. There was NEVER a time since April that we were at the part that more than one court was being used, and most of the time, they were totally empty. That is a waste of space. Besides, there are unused courts at UDC (5), Turtle Park (3) and Livingston (2), not to mention at the Police station (3).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool because it doesn't have one is one of the dumbest explanations for destroying a park I have ever heard. I find it particularly pathetic that nearby neighbors are demanding a pool within walking distance because they literally take a five minute drive for their choice of two pools in Georgetown.

I live a mile from Hearst. It takes 30 minutes to get to Volta and 40 minutes to get to Jelleff.

By walking, sure.

By public transit.

Despite Miss Cheh's good faith intentions, there's unlikely to be a swimming pool built at Hearst. Frequent park visitors know that there's no room for a pool without tearing out existing facilities like the soccer field, playground and tennis courts. As each of those uses has its own strong constituency, it's hard to see how DPR would destroy any of them for the pool. Then there are those (who may overlap with some users in the first three groups), who don't want to see Hearst altered by loss of the lawns and canopy tree cover. Hearst may be a nice spot for a pool in theory, but one just isn't going to fit without huge sacrifices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool because it doesn't have one is one of the dumbest explanations for destroying a park I have ever heard. I find it particularly pathetic that nearby neighbors are demanding a pool within walking distance because they literally take a five minute drive for their choice of two pools in Georgetown.

I live a mile from Hearst. It takes 30 minutes to get to Volta and 40 minutes to get to Jelleff.

By walking, sure.

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool because it doesn't have one is one of the dumbest explanations for destroying a park I have ever heard. I find it particularly pathetic that nearby neighbors are demanding a pool within walking distance because they literally take a five minute drive for their choice of two pools in Georgetown.

I live a mile from Hearst. It takes 30 minutes to get to Volta and 40 minutes to get to Jelleff.

Anonymous wrote:Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool because it doesn't have one is one of the dumbest explanations for destroying a park I have ever heard. I find it particularly pathetic that nearby neighbors are demanding a pool within walking distance because they literally take a five minute drive for their choice of two pools in Georgetown.

Not to mention that, at least on three sides of Heart Park, people within walking distance have easy access to at least three pools. In the case of Vaughan Place, directly to the west, a pool is part of the rental. South and east of Hearst, there are two private options (Cleveland Park Club (about $600/family) and Beauvoir swim club which is a bit more. Granted, these are not free, but most people in the area surrounding Hearst aren't exactly hurting financially, either. And for those who want a less expensive option, as you point out, two public outdoor pools are a short drive or bus ride away -- plus the year-round pool at Wilson. It does seem a high price to pay -- the loss of much of a green park with existing, needed recreational facilities -- so some folks can have a "free" pool, open 3 months of the year, within walking distance.