Anonymous wrote:This slide deck is really interesting. Whatever your position, a lot of analysis has gone into this (probably more than Mary Cheh ever did!).
https://app.box.com/s/jatg8bs2lim0rh66yly895e5xzyits1m
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Played tennis for over an hour at Hearst yesterday afternoon around 3-5. Sun was out, weather was beautiful, and the park was empty except for the playground which was packed with (pre-K and K school kids), four people exercising their dogs on the soccer field, and me and my tennis partner. So, for those keeping track, the portion of the park we're talking about was being used by a grand total of 6 humans for approx. 1.5 hrs yesterday.
Right - and this is unspoken but that is exactly how the neighbors would like it to stay.
Make no mistake if Stoddert or any other group came in and proposed greatly increasing the use of the field the neighbors would protest that as well - no doubt more games would negatively impact the Melvin Hazen watershed.
Anonymous wrote:Played tennis for over an hour at Hearst yesterday afternoon around 3-5. Sun was out, weather was beautiful, and the park was empty except for the playground which was packed with (pre-K and K school kids), four people exercising their dogs on the soccer field, and me and my tennis partner. So, for those keeping track, the portion of the park we're talking about was being used by a grand total of 6 humans for approx. 1.5 hrs yesterday.
Anonymous wrote:If Casey Trees were to get involved with this, it would be a first, and they would run the risk of pissing off hundreds of local residents who are likely current donors.
Anonymous wrote:Just at Hearst Park on this beautiful day. All three tennis courts were in use and people were waiting for a court. By now, a chain link enclosed pool woukd have been drained and the area shuttered until next summer. I noticed that the tennis courts are under the canopy of large trees on three sides, and three fourths of the court area was in shade. Constructing a pool at this location woke mean the substantial deforestation of the southern portion of the park.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day there will be environmental concerns, perhaps even lawsuits, about plans to build a pool at Hearst. My guess is that a pool there will not happen.
The only environmental concerns are those of the NIMBYs who are going to do NIMBY things.
Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day there will be environmental concerns, perhaps even lawsuits, about plans to build a pool at Hearst. My guess is that a pool there will not happen.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I walked by the park today. One possible site is to the east of the school and the shelter, where the portable classrooms used to be. It's quite possible to picture the pool there, as the site is even surrounded by a chain link fence! The site wouldn't bother the school, as the pool would be used on late spring weekends and during the summer, when school isn't in session. And the location right next to the parking lot would be so convenient. And it would mean that no current park feature would have to be sacrificed - not the big field or little field, the playground, tennis courts, trees. That might be a win-win spot.
I think the spot you're thinking of is not part of the site proper but is part of the right-of-way of Idaho Avenue. If you look at the DGS presentation they mark off the boundaries of the park, and there's a significant part absorbed by that ROW. Now, it's not impossible for one DC agency to transfer land to another, but it would mean bringing in DDOT.
Anonymous wrote:I walked by the park today. One possible site is to the east of the school and the shelter, where the portable classrooms used to be. It's quite possible to picture the pool there, as the site is even surrounded by a chain link fence! The site wouldn't bother the school, as the pool would be used on late spring weekends and during the summer, when school isn't in session. And the location right next to the parking lot would be so convenient. And it would mean that no current park feature would have to be sacrificed - not the big field or little field, the playground, tennis courts, trees. That might be a win-win spot.