Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Is it true the homeless shelter by the giant will be 8 stories and the tallest building there? I think we have bigger problems than the pool aesthetically speaking
Even uglier than the tall homeless shelter at Cathedral Common will be a three story concrete open-sided parking garage next to McLean Gardens. They're building the garage because when Cheh decreed the siting of the homeless shelter, she and D.C. staffers failed to consider that it would be built on the site of the police parking lot.
Anonymous wrote:Is it true the homeless shelter by the giant will be 8 stories and the tallest building there? I think we have bigger problems than the pool aesthetically speaking
Anonymous wrote:133 pages of "I don't want 'those people' coming to my multi-million dollar neighborhood and a pool would simply be a lure'.
Anonymous wrote:Other parts of the city already have pools. There is no reason to believe people are going to travel across town to swim at Hearst. The furthest people are going to come from is maybe Palisades or the area of Chevy Chase along Western Ave.
The same argument was made about rebuilding the Giant, that people were going to travel from all over the region to flood Cleveland Park for its Giant.
That hasn't happened, it is a neighborhood store, just like a pool would be a neighborhood pool.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Mary Cheh builds this pool at Hearst, it will only add to the growing animosity towards her. This pool would destroy the park as it now exists, whether or not trees are turned into saw dust.
For nine months a year, the pool will be a fenced in eyesore. The idea that building a pool will contribute to a revival of down on its heels Cleveland Park is specious on so many levels. Last time, I checked, it would be hard to find a house there for less $1 million. There are tons of young families and lots more commercial activity on Wisconsin avenue and more coming.
No one has argued that the pool is going to turn around Cleveland Park so nice try conflating things but thinking about it now it really isn't a bad argument - aside from people taking their kids to Sidwell's Summer Camp there really isn't much reason to otherwise go to Cleveland Park or at least that stretch of Wisconsin Avenue right now so bringing some more people there in the summer could be a win win.
But your other two arguments are losers - you are not going to elicit any sympathy by your crying about the pool being an eyesore (boo hoo hoo poor neighbors of Hearst Park) and this has been argued ad nauseum but politically putting a pool in Ward 3 will probably be the best thing Mary Cheh can do to boost her popularity as parents are tired of wasting time in the summer going elsewhere to go for a swim - I wasted 45 minutes this weekend going to Francis when I could have biked to a Hearst pool in a quarter of the time.
If you neighbors would just be honest that you don't want more activity in your neighborhood and are scared the pool might attract people from other parts of the city we could have an honest debate about it and people would at least respect your point of view. Instead we are stuck on this silliness about hydrology and Comrade Cheh and the aesthetic argument about looking at a locked pool.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If Mary Cheh builds this pool at Hearst, it will only add to the growing animosity towards her. This pool would destroy the park as it now exists, whether or not trees are turned into saw dust.
For nine months a year, the pool will be a fenced in eyesore. The idea that building a pool will contribute to a revival of down on its heels Cleveland Park is specious on so many levels. Last time, I checked, it would be hard to find a house there for less $1 million. There are tons of young families and lots more commercial activity on Wisconsin avenue and more coming.
No one has argued that the pool is going to turn around Cleveland Park so nice try conflating things but thinking about it now it really isn't a bad argument - aside from people taking their kids to Sidwell's Summer Camp there really isn't much reason to otherwise go to Cleveland Park or at least that stretch of Wisconsin Avenue right now so bringing some more people there in the summer could be a win win.
But your other two arguments are losers - you are not going to elicit any sympathy by your crying about the pool being an eyesore (boo hoo hoo poor neighbors of Hearst Park) and this has been argued ad nauseum but politically putting a pool in Ward 3 will probably be the best thing Mary Cheh can do to boost her popularity as parents are tired of wasting time in the summer going elsewhere to go for a swim - I wasted 45 minutes this weekend going to Francis when I could have biked to a Hearst pool in a quarter of the time.
If you neighbors would just be honest that you don't want more activity in your neighborhood and are scared the pool might attract people from other parts of the city we could have an honest debate about it and people would at least respect your point of view. Instead we are stuck on this silliness about hydrology and Comrade Cheh and the aesthetic argument about looking at a locked pool.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
If you neighbors would just be honest that you don't want more activity in your neighborhood and are scared the pool might attract people from other parts of the city we could have an honest debate about it and people would at least respect your point of view. Instead we are stuck on this silliness about hydrology and Comrade Cheh and the aesthetic argument about looking at a locked pool.
There are anti-pool people who oppose it because of concerns about more activity - traffic in the neighborhood. But I don't think anyone has given a thought about whether that activity is from within or without Ward 3. I worry that you are making the suggestion that race is playing an issue - "people from other parts of the city" - and that's a false assumption. And of course, that argument can be turned on its head because anti-pool people can argue that the pro-pool people are worried about traveling to "other parts of the city" to go swimming.
I'm sorry that you don't respect my point of view but I'm not surprised given your spiteful and unreasoned tone. I do understand that folks want an outdoor pool nearby. I just don't want to sacrifice green space. Whether you believe it or not or respect my opinion or not, my concerns about the aesthetics are very deeply felt. I don't oppose a pool if it is built on the tennis courts or some other spot where there is already a hard surface. But I want the park preserved - as is - for current and future generations. As the city gets more and more vibrant, an open green space like Hearst will be of more value. DC is going to be more dense so, that is all the more reason to for long term planning that protects isolated spots like Hearst field.
Anonymous wrote:If Mary Cheh builds this pool at Hearst, it will only add to the growing animosity towards her. This pool would destroy the park as it now exists, whether or not trees are turned into saw dust.
For nine months a year, the pool will be a fenced in eyesore. The idea that building a pool will contribute to a revival of down on its heels Cleveland Park is specious on so many levels. Last time, I checked, it would be hard to find a house there for less $1 million. There are tons of young families and lots more commercial activity on Wisconsin avenue and more coming.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hearst anti pool person, I think we need to look at what's going on in CP abs Tenleytown at large. I am not personally anti pool but your point hits home that there's been a lot of development ans the height requirement also seeks to be becoming fungible in the hands of our civic leaders. However, when you focus just on the pool, or someone else on the homeless shelter, and someone else about Sidwwll and someone else about gds it seems like NIMbY whining. How do we have a discussion to looking at how this pace of development overall is impacting traffic parking trees and ambiance. I think the city would like to keep it on thr divide and conquer level. Is there any person or group who is connecting the dots to form a grounded rebuttal for some of these proposals or even some aspects of these proposals (to tweak or scale them back)?
Another crazy post.
There has been virtually no development in Cleveland Park except for the Giant project which is barely bigger than what it replaced and smaller than what surrounds it - the neighborhood unfortunately has succeeded in killing every proposal that has come along.
There are no proposals to change the height limit right now - the DC Council decided that it should not even have the option to vote on it.
Oddly in part because there has been no development the neighborhood is getting two new lower private schools that will cater to a largely suburbanite clientele who will mostly drive so in that sense the neighborhood is getting what it deserves - if those plots of land had been developed for housing they would have almost certainly generated less traffic and parking demand but those projects are both essentially matter of right with minimal neighborhood input which is probably not a coincidence.
What impact has their been on trees or parking to date when we've essentially had no development? The city has been planting an impressive number of trees the last 4-5 years and the tree canopy in Ward 3 is in fantastic shape.
It is not hard to connect the dots - you live in a city and cities usually change or die. Most of DC is changing and is thriving. Cleveland Park is not changing and it is not thriving.
Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees. Or maybe you forgot to take your geritol again but neither the truth nor what is going on is particularly complicated.