Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting tidbit in the Current letter today: describing one of the meetings, the writer writes, "we were shocked when, in response to a question, the architect said the drawings are not to scale."

Which is something that posters on this thread have pointed out.

Leaving aside the question of whether the pool is wanted or not, the city's approach just seems so amateurish.

Of course they aren't to scale. As I've said before, if anyone actually believes a public pool with its decks and equipment will take up the space of one single tennis court, I've a got bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Nine of the drawings included any of that. Just a randomly plopped pool somewhere on the property.

The DC government is certainly taking a Trumpian alt-reality view of the facts. Providing drawings not to scale is ridiculous.

None, why does that keep correcting to nine?

Sorry, nine, not nine.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting tidbit in the Current letter today: describing one of the meetings, the writer writes, "we were shocked when, in response to a question, the architect said the drawings are not to scale."

Which is something that posters on this thread have pointed out.

Leaving aside the question of whether the pool is wanted or not, the city's approach just seems so amateurish.

Of course they aren't to scale. As I've said before, if anyone actually believes a public pool with its decks and equipment will take up the space of one single tennis court, I've a got bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Nine of the drawings included any of that. Just a randomly plopped pool somewhere on the property.

Interesting tidbit in the Current letter today: describing one of the meetings, the writer writes, "we were shocked when, in response to a question, the architect said the drawings are not to scale."

Which is something that posters on this thread have pointed out.

Leaving aside the question of whether the pool is wanted or not, the city's approach just seems so amateurish.

Anonymous wrote:The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

What was the last time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who live near Hearst Park and in the northern end of Cleveland Park tend to oppose a pool at Hearst. The farther away from the park one goes, support tends to rise. I would think it would be the opposite.

No, it makes total sense to me. Those of us who live in those areas currently use the park as is. We sled there, our kids play soccer there, we play tennis, the kids use the playground, we fly kites on the field...I love it that way. This is a residential neighborhood. It completely makes sense that those who live further away don't care if that changes for those of us who live close to the park, while if you tried to put a pool like this literally in their backyards, I suspect support would again be low from those closest to it and higher from those whose day to day lives would not be impacted.

This is exactly what happened at much-used Friendship (aka Turtle) Park in AU Park. Turtle Park is significantly larger than Hearst, but they still passed on putting a pool there.

Anonymous wrote:PP, you will still be able to do all of those things at the park, every single one of them, and have a pool to boot! Who wouldn't want a neighborhood pool right there where the kids could go every day during the summer.

I would gladly have a public pool on my block.

Yup, we could get a mini-field and a mini-pool and mini trees to replace the beautiful shade canopy we have today. Sounds like a win-win-win.

Anonymous wrote:The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

Funny. I've been a CPHS member for 15 years and I haven't heard this at all.

Hearst Park borders the Cleveland Park Historic District on two sides. Hearst Park also lies within what is generally considered the boundaries of Cleveland Park (see for example, CP Citizens Association borders). While the Architectural Review Committee directly passes on the design of projects within the historic district itself, CPCA has a broader mission, to "promote interest in the history of Cleveland Park and to encourage preservation of its architectural heritage and character as a friendly residential neighborhood with a strong sense of community." Preservation of a park, including its green space character, which is heavily used by the Cleveland Park neighborhood, would seem to be within this mission.

PP, you will still be able to do all of those things at the park, every single one of them, and have a pool to boot! Who wouldn't want a neighborhood pool right there where the kids could go every day during the summer.

I would gladly have a public pool on my block.

Anonymous wrote:People who live near Hearst Park and in the northern end of Cleveland Park tend to oppose a pool at Hearst. The farther away from the park one goes, support tends to rise. I would think it would be the opposite.

No, it makes total sense to me. Those of us who live in those areas currently use the park as is. We sled there, our kids play soccer there, we play tennis, the kids use the playground, we fly kites on the field...I love it that way. This is a residential neighborhood. It completely makes sense that those who live further away don't care if that changes for those of us who live close to the park, while if you tried to put a pool like this literally in their backyards, I suspect support would again be low from those closest to it and higher from those whose day to day lives would not be impacted.

The last time the Cleveland Park Historical Society opposed something outside of its borders, it caused majpr upheaval to the Board and organization. I hear the same thing is happening this time. Many are VERY upset that CPHS did this without input from its membership.

Pretty significant that the Cleveland Park Historical Society has gone on record against paving Hearst for a pool.

People who live near Hearst Park and in the northern end of Cleveland Park tend to oppose a pool at Hearst. The farther away from the park one goes, support tends to rise. I would think it would be the opposite.

There's a very interesting letter in the NW current today on how the DC government gamed the survey by belatedly adding a 'no' to the pool option, but only recording it if respondents also chose one of the pool build options. As a result, many 'no' votes were likely not recorded because opponents didn't vote for a build option.