Anonymous wrote:I am so glad a tiny minority of people can impose their will of having good things for the majority of the people.

Hey, I guess the Hearst residents are the Trumpkins in this issue.

Congrats to the Trumpkins who don't want minorities in their enclave.

In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. The Ward 3 "swimming pool supporters" are obsessed with the idea that they require one or more pools within their ward (where incomes may be more than 7 times the incomes in the poorest wards) because they don't want to have to mix with DC residents at pools in other wards, even nearby ones.

Meanwhile, have a look at the kids who already come from all over to play soccer on Hearst's rare large field, all day every weekend day during many months of the year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a member of the the CP historical society, and I believe that the board IS reflecting the membership. They're spot on in pointing out that DC did no analysis of the site versus alternatives and are concerned about the loss of greenspace and especially the old tree canopy. And the historic district wraps around the park on two sides

I don't believe that the historical society took a stand on Cathedral Commons, but it's surprising that you mention it as an example, given how crappy the design turned out.

SO true. I originally looked forward to Cathedral Commons opening, but unfortunately the design turned out to be rather ugly and the construction is cheap looking. There's so much concrete. It looks like a project that a developer would put up while hedging its bet in a transitional neighborhood, not in a prime location in one of the strongest real estate markets in the city. With 20/20 hindsight, I wish that more local groups had weighed in when this came up for review and permits.

i don't understand the hate for Cathedral Commons. it's certainly no uglier than the strip of retail on CT Ave, and much much more functional for a typical family. There's a grocery store, several restaurants that aren't too fancy to bring the kids to, and parking.

I am so glad a tiny minority of people can impose their will of having good things for the majority of the people.

Hey, I guess the Hearst residents are the Trumpkins in this issue.

Congrats to the Trumpkins who don't want minorities in their enclave.

Anonymous wrote:If you haven’t already, please fill out the survey (Each device is allowed one response) so if you want the pool, do what those opposed are doing and be sure to us multiple devices to game the results.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QHZJJ7K

It's a well-known fact that anyone who disagrees with me is unethical and prone to cheating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that if the outdoor pool advocates really feel that Ward 3 needs its own pool (notwithstanding an indoor pool in the center of the ward and several public outdoor pools on the ward's periphery), then they need to find a better site than Hearst.

What about at Lafayette? Isn't there a big space there where people walk dogs?

As was noted upthread, if your goal is to actually bring a pool to people who don't have access currently -- as opposed to building a "Ward 3 Pool" -- the way to do that is one pool at Lafayette and one in AU Park. That's what the DPR master plan calls for.

+1

Hearst Park lies within the boundaries of Cleveland Park.

http://www.cpcadc.org/boundaries/

Anonymous wrote:I guess the boundaries of North Cleveland Park have been pushed north now.

Ha! Don't you know the residents of "Greater Greater Van Ness" call themselves Cleveland Park to drive up their real estate values, but then tell Cleveland Park organizations that Hearst is none of their business?

Anonymous wrote:I'm a member of the the CP historical society, and I believe that the board IS reflecting the membership. They're spot on in pointing out that DC did no analysis of the site versus alternatives and are concerned about the loss of greenspace and especially the old tree canopy. And the historic district wraps around the park on two sides

I don't believe that the historical society took a stand on Cathedral Commons, but it's surprising that you mention it as an example, given how crappy the design turned out.

SO true. I originally looked forward to Cathedral Commons opening, but unfortunately the design turned out to be rather ugly and the construction is cheap looking. There's so much concrete. It looks like a project that a developer would put up while hedging its bet in a transitional neighborhood, not in a prime location in one of the strongest real estate markets in the city. With 20/20 hindsight, I wish that more local groups had weighed in when this came up for review and permits.

I guess the boundaries of North Cleveland Park have been pushed north now.

Anonymous wrote:Hearst isn't in the historic district.

That doesn't matter. Hearst Park directly fronts and abuts it. While the Cleveland Park Historical Society's architectural review committee is tasked with reviewing projects within the historic district itself, CPHS has a broader mission. Among other things, it is to promote interest in the history of Cleveland Park (which is not coterminous with the historic district) and to encourage preservation of the neighborhood's character. Preservation of public parkland and green space in Cleveland Park certainly seems to be within that mission.

I don't know. The city is going to start a planning process with that community soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that if the outdoor pool advocates really feel that Ward 3 needs its own pool (notwithstanding an indoor pool in the center of the ward and several public outdoor pools on the ward's periphery), then they need to find a better site than Hearst.

What about at Lafayette? Isn't there a big space there where people walk dogs?

How would the neighborhood residents around Lafayette feel about a pool there. If there's space at the park, would there be strong local support?

Anonymous wrote:The baseball mafia killed the pool at Turtle Park despite the strong support from the local residents. We understand the community value to having a proximate public pool and are dumbfounded as to the NIMBY opposition from the Hearst area residents.

One might expect that the Stoddert soccer "mafia" then will be all over the Hearst pool plan.

Hearst isn't in the historic district.

Anonymous wrote:The baseball mafia killed the pool at Turtle Park despite the strong support from the local residents. We understand the community value to having a proximate public pool and are dumbfounded as to the NIMBY opposition from the Hearst area residents.

The Cleveland Park Historical Society is a pretty serious opponent. Not some ragtag band of NIMBYs as you may wish to dismiss all those with concerns about a pool at the Hearst site.