Anonymous wrote:There's DC government land next to Deal, currently used for overflow parking, that could be a good site for a pool. It's centrally located, on transit and next to secondary schools, which is good for June use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

The areas you mention have no DC owned space for a pool. Yes, there should be 2 pools west of the park (let's remove the ward argument to make it easier). So one at Lafayette and one at Hearst. Problem solved.

Lafayette is going through its public process next year, so this could happen!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Very thoughtful post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

The areas you mention have no DC owned space for a pool. Yes, there should be 2 pools west of the park (let's remove the ward argument to make it easier). So one at Lafayette and one at Hearst. Problem solved.

Lafayette is going through its public process next year, so this could happen!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Permits apply just to the field, yes. But the broader point is that no analysis was done -- as evidenced by the FOIA response. What we're having now is the kind of discussion that DPR should have had, but didn't.

On the other hand, the DPR master facilities plan seems to have been the result of a reasonable amount of thought. If you look at the DPR master facilities plan -- http://dpr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dpr/publication/attachments/DCPRMP_VisionDocument_web_0.pdf -- on page 35 is a map of existing and needed aquatic facilitites. Areas of the city that are not within 1 mile of an outdoor pool -- the stated standard -- are in slate blue. Areas that have no need are in gray. What color is the area around Hearst? Gray. The only part of the city that is blue is a stripe running roughly parallel to the northwest border of the city about a mile wide. The plan proposes three new pools, two to the west of Rock Creek and one to the east, which would serve that entire swipe. One of the pools would be in Spring Valley and the other would be at Military and Nebraska.

Now the obvious flaw is that the locations shown for new pools don't happen to be actual DPR locations. I wouldn't be surprised if that was done to keep controversy from derailing the plans. And if you look at the map (you probably need to enlarge it) DPR owns very little land in the target area, it's shown in dark green. Lots of NPS land (light green) but that's probably off limits. For the southern location the obvious target is Friendship Park. There is another DPR property named Spring Valley Park that is nearby, I'm not familiar with it but I know that area isn't very walkable so I doubt it would be a good location for a neighborhood pool.

For the northern location the obvious choice is Lafayette. Of course, that's in Ward 4 -- which just goes to show the ridiculousness of the whole "Ward 3 needs an outdoor pool" line of thinking. The Lafayette location would actually serve thousands of Ward 3 residents who don't currently have access to an outdoor pool -- unlike Hearst -- but it's on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

Do those sites actually work? It would take some study -- which still needs to be done.

Anonymous wrote:Just because there aren't permits doesn't mean the park isn't being used. Or do you men just the field?

Anonymous wrote:Ft Reno is NPS, so not an equivalent.

Forest Hills is very highly used, the park is jammed during the day and weekends with a much higher population density than the area around Hearst. I don't know where you get that observation from.

I can't speak to Palisades, but it isn't centrally located to have a pool. DPR apparently had already ruled it out.

Anonymous wrote:Ft Reno is NPS, so not an equivalent.

Forest Hills is very highly used, the park is jammed during the day and weekends with a much higher population density than the area around Hearst. I don't know where you get that observation from.

I can't speak to Palisades, but it isn't centrally located to have a pool. DPR apparently had already ruled it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you look at the footprint for even the small Volta pool, concrete deck and pool house, it would eliminate much more than just two tennis courts at Hearst. One of the websites has the footprints superimposed. And that's the footprint for basically the smallest DC pool around. DPR should find some empty property that is not already used for other recreational activities and put a pool there.

Because DPR has binders full of empty property just lying around in upper NW waiting to have a pool installed on it?