Anonymous wrote:"I said the argument, not the arguer, was stupid.

Which it is.

So if you want to continuing arguing to the broader community that badly wants a swimming pool in their own part of town that a reason they shouldn't get one is because the immediate neighbors are worried about looking at a shuttered facility part of the year go right ahead and continue looking vain and stupid and I'll add selfish."

I favor preserving the park for future generations, how is that selfish?

And by the way, your post contradicts itself, which is stupid.

Love love love the faux environmental arguments from the immediate neighbors.

DPR=Department of Parks and Recreation

There should be some recreation at our public parks.

How again does adding a pool take aware the park from future generations?

Currently no one in a future generation uses the park in summer because of the under used tennis courts that are there for the current aging generation.

Your arguments are vain, selfish and stupid. If you want to make the inference that you are vain selfish and stupid that is on you.

"I said the argument, not the arguer, was stupid.

Which it is.

So if you want to continuing arguing to the broader community that badly wants a swimming pool in their own part of town that a reason they shouldn't get one is because the immediate neighbors are worried about looking at a shuttered facility part of the year go right ahead and continue looking vain and stupid and I'll add selfish."

I favor preserving the park for future generations, how is that selfish?

And by the way, your post contradicts itself, which is stupid.

Anonymous wrote:"And please neighbors huddle amongst yourselves and make a decision to drop the swimming pool will be ugly and locked 9 months of the year argument - you sound really vain and stupid every time you make that point"

Nobody is going to drop that point. And if your need to resort to name calling highlights the weakness of your position.

I said the argument, not the arguer, was stupid.

Which it is.

So if you want to continuing arguing to the broader community that badly wants a swimming pool in their own part of town that a reason they shouldn't get one is because the immediate neighbors are worried about looking at a shuttered facility part of the year go right ahead and continue looking vain and stupid and I'll add selfish.

"And please neighbors huddle amongst yourselves and make a decision to drop the swimming pool will be ugly and locked 9 months of the year argument - you sound really vain and stupid every time you make that point"

Nobody is going to drop that point. And if your need to resort to name calling highlights the weakness of your position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

The basketball court is maintained by Hearst rec center, is not heavily used, and in any event there is no shortage of such courts in DC. This is the perfect place for a pool. Level, close to parking and no disturbance of green space. As tradeoffs go -- and by definition there will be tradeoffs is a Hearst pool is built -- this is pretty good.

This makes no sense - the basketball court is adjacent to the elementary school and is used by the elementary school. As the PP wrote yesterday afternoon the basketball court was being used while the multiple tennis courts were not. So you would remove a better used rec resource to keep the pool further from hour home even if it negatively impacted more people?

Your anecdotal observation is hardly a survey, and in any event DC has many more basketball courts than tennis courts. As others have pointed out, building anything on the tennis court site is more likely to impact the tall trees. I would hate to lose the basketball court, too (although it could likely be moved next to the school, where the porta-classroom building used to be), but what this all points out is that any pool at Hearst will have to involve sacrificing one or more recreational needs at the park. DGS with its not-to-scale drawings wants to skate over the issue for now, but it's obvious that to build a pool, something's gotta' give.

Not sure what the numbers are citywide but there are definitely more outdoor tennis courts in Ward 3 than basketball courts - I can list them for you if you don't ever leave CP and are unaware. But a tennis court will serve no useful purpose for Hearst ES so your idea is an absolute non-starter and in any case a solution in search of a problem.

Not sure why opponents keep saying the drawings are not to scale - what is there now is close to a full size soccer field which would be 120 yards and the field does not even come close to fully occupying the space - you guys can keep saying things don't fit but they do. The confusion of the opponents (deliberate or otherwise) about the scale does not make you right.

The mature trees at the current tennis court location are between the courts and the soccer field. There is no reason a pool can't be sited on the southern end of the tennis court location and have no impact on the trees. In fact the tennis courts are below the grade of the smallish trees along Quebec Street and above the grade of the actual mature trees to the north. The argument that a pool can't be put in without damaging the trees is totally bogus as anyone who visits the site can easily see.

Opponents have been making and getting away with bogus arguments because no one has been challenging you which is a shame.

The park is not a vibrant well used space.

The pool drawings in fact are to scale.

A pool can be put in without destroying the trees.

If I had a dollar for every time the buzzword "vibrant" was used today, I could pay for a pool at Hearst!

We hear that Wisconsin Avenue isn't "vibrant" enough. Cleveland Park needs to be more "vibrant." Now Hearst Park needs to be a "vibrant well used space." Hearst isn't supposed to be some new, generic urbanist town center with a craft bourbon bar and a Five Guys. It's a green park, folks.

But speaking of "vibrant," what would you call a park that has soccer teams rotating on and off the field from before 8 a.m. until after 5 p.m.? And what about a fenced pool enclosure that is locked and gated nine months per year, in all of its concrete splendor? Talk about "vibrant."

Recreational space in DC, as in most cities, is in very high demand.

And Hearst is, despite some confusion about this among the immediate neighbors, a public park that is supposed to be used for recreation.

Yet yesterday when lots of people were outside no one was at Hearst Park.

Which gets to the heart of the matter here which is that the neighbors want it to stay that way.

But that is not the best interest of the broader community for which Hearst Park is supposed to be serving.

And please neighbors huddle amongst yourselves and make a decision to drop the swimming pool will be ugly and locked 9 months of the year argument - you sound really vain and stupid every time you make that point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

The basketball court is maintained by Hearst rec center, is not heavily used, and in any event there is no shortage of such courts in DC. This is the perfect place for a pool. Level, close to parking and no disturbance of green space. As tradeoffs go -- and by definition there will be tradeoffs is a Hearst pool is built -- this is pretty good.

This makes no sense - the basketball court is adjacent to the elementary school and is used by the elementary school. As the PP wrote yesterday afternoon the basketball court was being used while the multiple tennis courts were not. So you would remove a better used rec resource to keep the pool further from hour home even if it negatively impacted more people?

Your anecdotal observation is hardly a survey, and in any event DC has many more basketball courts than tennis courts. As others have pointed out, building anything on the tennis court site is more likely to impact the tall trees. I would hate to lose the basketball court, too (although it could likely be moved next to the school, where the porta-classroom building used to be), but what this all points out is that any pool at Hearst will have to involve sacrificing one or more recreational needs at the park. DGS with its not-to-scale drawings wants to skate over the issue for now, but it's obvious that to build a pool, something's gotta' give.

Not sure what the numbers are citywide but there are definitely more outdoor tennis courts in Ward 3 than basketball courts - I can list them for you if you don't ever leave CP and are unaware. But a tennis court will serve no useful purpose for Hearst ES so your idea is an absolute non-starter and in any case a solution in search of a problem.

Not sure why opponents keep saying the drawings are not to scale - what is there now is close to a full size soccer field which would be 120 yards and the field does not even come close to fully occupying the space - you guys can keep saying things don't fit but they do. The confusion of the opponents (deliberate or otherwise) about the scale does not make you right.

The mature trees at the current tennis court location are between the courts and the soccer field. There is no reason a pool can't be sited on the southern end of the tennis court location and have no impact on the trees. In fact the tennis courts are below the grade of the smallish trees along Quebec Street and above the grade of the actual mature trees to the north. The argument that a pool can't be put in without damaging the trees is totally bogus as anyone who visits the site can easily see.

Opponents have been making and getting away with bogus arguments because no one has been challenging you which is a shame.

The park is not a vibrant well used space.

The pool drawings in fact are to scale.

A pool can be put in without destroying the trees.

If I had a dollar for every time the buzzword "vibrant" was used today, I could pay for a pool at Hearst!

We hear that Wisconsin Avenue isn't "vibrant" enough. Cleveland Park needs to be more "vibrant." Now Hearst Park needs to be a "vibrant well used space." Hearst isn't supposed to be some new, generic urbanist town center with a craft bourbon bar and a Five Guys. It's a green park, folks.

But speaking of "vibrant," what would you call a park that has soccer teams rotating on and off the field from before 8 a.m. until after 5 p.m.? And what about a fenced pool enclosure that is locked and gated nine months per year, in all of its concrete splendor? Talk about "vibrant."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

I've lined the field at Hearst. There is about 60 yards of width before you run into the hill in the southwest corner and the trees on the east side. Length is about 105 yards. You'd have to do major earthmoving to keep the field dimensions and rotate it 90 degrees.

There's a reason all of the DGS "concepts" were not-to-scale.

Yes. It would be awful (and very expensive) to see the slope along 37th Street turned into a 'bathtub wall', akin to the large concrete retaining structures that one sees where interstate highways cut through hillsides.

That's absurd and hyperbolic - there are retaining walls throughout the neighborhood that look nothing like what you see along a highway. But let's keep scaring everyone, especially when most people aren't paying attention.

And the slope isn't that great anyhow - looking at the current configuration you could shift the soccer field a bit to the east and easily have space to the west of the field for tennis courts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

The basketball court is maintained by Hearst rec center, is not heavily used, and in any event there is no shortage of such courts in DC. This is the perfect place for a pool. Level, close to parking and no disturbance of green space. As tradeoffs go -- and by definition there will be tradeoffs is a Hearst pool is built -- this is pretty good.

This makes no sense - the basketball court is adjacent to the elementary school and is used by the elementary school. As the PP wrote yesterday afternoon the basketball court was being used while the multiple tennis courts were not. So you would remove a better used rec resource to keep the pool further from hour home even if it negatively impacted more people?

Your anecdotal observation is hardly a survey, and in any event DC has many more basketball courts than tennis courts. As others have pointed out, building anything on the tennis court site is more likely to impact the tall trees. I would hate to lose the basketball court, too (although it could likely be moved next to the school, where the porta-classroom building used to be), but what this all points out is that any pool at Hearst will have to involve sacrificing one or more recreational needs at the park. DGS with its not-to-scale drawings wants to skate over the issue for now, but it's obvious that to build a pool, something's gotta' give.

Not sure what the numbers are citywide but there are definitely more outdoor tennis courts in Ward 3 than basketball courts - I can list them for you if you don't ever leave CP and are unaware. But a tennis court will serve no useful purpose for Hearst ES so your idea is an absolute non-starter and in any case a solution in search of a problem.

Not sure why opponents keep saying the drawings are not to scale - what is there now is close to a full size soccer field which would be 120 yards and the field does not even come close to fully occupying the space - you guys can keep saying things don't fit but they do. The confusion of the opponents (deliberate or otherwise) about the scale does not make you right.

The mature trees at the current tennis court location are between the courts and the soccer field. There is no reason a pool can't be sited on the southern end of the tennis court location and have no impact on the trees. In fact the tennis courts are below the grade of the smallish trees along Quebec Street and above the grade of the actual mature trees to the north. The argument that a pool can't be put in without damaging the trees is totally bogus as anyone who visits the site can easily see.

Opponents have been making and getting away with bogus arguments because no one has been challenging you which is a shame.

The park is not a vibrant well used space.

The pool drawings in fact are to scale.

A pool can be put in without destroying the trees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

The basketball court is maintained by Hearst rec center, is not heavily used, and in any event there is no shortage of such courts in DC. This is the perfect place for a pool. Level, close to parking and no disturbance of green space. As tradeoffs go -- and by definition there will be tradeoffs is a Hearst pool is built -- this is pretty good.

This makes no sense - the basketball court is adjacent to the elementary school and is used by the elementary school. As the PP wrote yesterday afternoon the basketball court was being used while the multiple tennis courts were not. So you would remove a better used rec resource to keep the pool further from hour home even if it negatively impacted more people?

Your anecdotal observation is hardly a survey, and in any event DC has many more basketball courts than tennis courts. As others have pointed out, building anything on the tennis court site is more likely to impact the tall trees. I would hate to lose the basketball court, too (although it could likely be moved next to the school, where the porta-classroom building used to be), but what this all points out is that any pool at Hearst will have to involve sacrificing one or more recreational needs at the park. DGS with its not-to-scale drawings wants to skate over the issue for now, but it's obvious that to build a pool, something's gotta' give.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

I've lined the field at Hearst. There is about 60 yards of width before you run into the hill in the southwest corner and the trees on the east side. Length is about 105 yards. You'd have to do major earthmoving to keep the field dimensions and rotate it 90 degrees.

There's a reason all of the DGS "concepts" were not-to-scale.

Yes. It would be awful (and very expensive) to see the slope along 37th Street turned into a 'bathtub wall', akin to the large concrete retaining structures that one sees where interstate highways cut through hillsides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

I've lined the field at Hearst. There is about 60 yards of width before you run into the hill in the southwest corner and the trees on the east side. Length is about 105 yards. You'd have to do major earthmoving to keep the field dimensions and rotate it 90 degrees.

There's a reason all of the DGS "concepts" were not-to-scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

The basketball court is maintained by Hearst rec center, is not heavily used, and in any event there is no shortage of such courts in DC. This is the perfect place for a pool. Level, close to parking and no disturbance of green space. As tradeoffs go -- and by definition there will be tradeoffs is a Hearst pool is built -- this is pretty good.

This makes no sense - the basketball court is adjacent to the elementary school and is used by the elementary school. As the PP wrote yesterday afternoon the basketball court was being used while the multiple tennis courts were not. So you would remove a better used rec resource to keep the pool further from hour home even if it negatively impacted more people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

The basketball court is maintained by Hearst rec center, is not heavily used, and in any event there is no shortage of such courts in DC. This is the perfect place for a pool. Level, close to parking and no disturbance of green space. As tradeoffs go -- and by definition there will be tradeoffs is a Hearst pool is built -- this is pretty good.

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.

Why would a retaining wall be a disaster? It is not even clear it would be required and there is no reason the fields would impact the line of trees on the east side. Again this is a large space they have to work with.

No reason to further muddle things going into Hearst's space - there is plenty of space in the park itself and no reason to add something to what is already the actual intensely used part of the site.

I disagree with your ideas about reconfiguring the field on an east west axis. Excavating the west slope with a tall concrete retaining wall would be a disaster, and moving the field would result in the loss of large trees on the east side. However, you may be on to something in the NE corner of the park. At a minimum, a pool could go on the upper flat area in the location where the basketball court and a portion of the eastern part of the playground are. That portion of the playground area could easily be moved to the site of the former portable classroom building, next to the school. This location also has the advantage of access, particularly for those with mobility problems. It would have easy access to the parking lot, which is lightly used during summer months when the school is not in session and the pool would be open. And no Park green space is sacrificed.