Anonymous wrote:

People don't want it. They don't want to lose the green space, the trees, the tennis courts. We've had enough mature tree cutting and excessive concrete laying recently -- just look at Wisconsin and Idaho. And there's no off-street parking for a pool unless Hearst school volunteers its parking -- which is doubtful. Let Mary Cheh move the pool and her pet homeless shelter to her own neighborhood.

You don't want it, but plenty of people do. Please do not purport to speak for me or the hundreds of people who have already weighed in on this.

37th Street is a long stretch of totally unzoned accessible parking. Between that and the Hearst school parking lot, there is plenty of parking. But many people will simply walk or bike to the pool, so it shouldn't be a concern. It is a total amenity to live close to a pool. Look at all of the community pools in Montgomery County. It is an asset.

Not everyone has kids or dogs. A pool gathering spot would be a nice addition. That was my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

The neighborhood already gathers at the park. If you lived there, you would know it.

I do know it as I gather and the playground with my kids and I see the dog walkers gathering on the field. The pool could be another focal point if it is designed properly. That was my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

And we can't use them.

So why not push for a pool site in your neighborhood then? Why ruin a perfectly good park and a large field and tennis courts that the neighborhood bordering the park want to keep/

Hearst is my neighborhood, that is why I am pushing for it.

+1

+2

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

The neighborhood already gathers at the park. If you lived there, you would know it.

I am opposed to the pool and for none of the reasons which have been previously stated. Our elementary school age kids go to Hearst , we live in the neighborhood and would probably use the pool a lot if it were there (we do not belong to a private pool or club and have no plans to join one)

However my opposition is theefold

- DPR does not appear to be able to consistently maintain the facilities it has currently at a high level of functionality and cleanliness. Example 1 - the playground area at Hearst park has had broken equipment for more than 1 year despite repeated repair requests by private individuals and the DPR employee on site at the Rec cottage. Example 2 - Wilson pool - cleanliness level ranging from not great to pretty gross

- I believe funds would be better used to improve existing facilities / programs vs creating new facilities that are likely to have same sub par maintenance as existing ones
Example 1 - Hearst playground has a dangerous saucer swing that should be replaced.
Example 2 - Hearst playground would be safer for the 300 plus school Kids that use it everyday if the fencing went all Around the area vs Leaving a gap open the parking lot. Example 3 - Hearst playground for young kids needs a sunshade along the lines of what they have at Palisades park or the type commonly used in warmer states . In the summer the sun is so brutal it's not pleasant or arguably not even safe for little kids to use the playground for much of the day. Example 4 - Wilson pool consistently has more demand for kids swimming lessons than they are able to meet. When questioned the Aquatics Director has indicated the problem is a lack of funds for additional qualified instructors.
Example 5 - reference earlier point about shoddy maintenance at Wilson

- I believe there are higher priority needs for city funds than a public pool in Ward 3. Whether they choose to avail themselves of these options or not the fact is the substantial majority of Ward 3 residents have the means to access other public or private swimming pool options.

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

People don't want it. They don't want to lose the green space, the trees, the tennis courts. We've had enough mature tree cutting and excessive concrete laying recently -- just look at Wisconsin and Idaho. And there's no off-street parking for a pool unless Hearst school volunteers its parking -- which is doubtful. Let Mary Cheh move the pool and her pet homeless shelter to her own neighborhood.

Seems to me the people who are opposed to the pool are in a serious case of group think. It must be some of the older residents who don't really use the park or socialize with the younger families. ("everyone I know is opposed to the pool")

Really, there is overwhelming support for this. Please don't try to fight it, it will just divide the neighborhood. Why not push for hours of operation that maximize usage but minimize perceived wear and tear? How about advocating for gathering areas so the neighborhood can come together there.

Another thing, we should be pushing for a 12 months design, so when the pool isn't being used, the space can still be programmed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

And we can't use them.

So why not push for a pool site in your neighborhood then? Why ruin a perfectly good park and a large field and tennis courts that the neighborhood bordering the park want to keep/

Hearst is my neighborhood, that is why I am pushing for it.

+1

again +1, my neighborhood and I want the pool

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are public tennis courts at UDC (three blocks away) and the Newark St park in McLean Gardens. In addition, there are courts at Sidwell, the Cathedral, Rose Park, Livingston Playground, Lafayette Playground and on and on. Look at an aerial, there are tennis courts, most of them public, all over the place.

No public outdoor pools.

That is why we need one. And, why is anyone assuming Hearst would lose tennis courts? No one from DPR has suggested that, so let's not let the strawman win that argument.

Sidwell, the Cathedral, etc. are private courts. UDC is usually closed to the community.

No one has seen a plan for Hearst yet, but it's unlikely a pool could be shoehorned in without taking out existing facilities. If I had to choose something to go, however, I'd get rid of the turf field and the basketball courts at the top of the hill nearest the school. They could easily be relocated to the other side of the school building near Tilden St.

The turf field near the school is not going away, especially since a whole lot of money was spend just building it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. You say that the site is "walkable for thousands of families." How does that square with citing "the few who live right there"?

2. DC has a system of neighborhood parks -- e.g., Palisades, Friendship/Chevy Chase, Macomb, "Turtle" Park, etc. While each is open to all and serve a broader community through use of fields by sports teams and so forth, they also serve fundamentally neighborhood-oriented needs as well. Shouldn't the views of those who regularly use the fields or the tennis courts or just enjoy sitting under a large, shady tree be given some distinct weight as well? I don't notice the frequent users of the above parks clamoring to sacrifice recreational features of their neighborhood parks for a large ward pool. It's very easy to be a YIMBY -- "Yes, in your back yard!" -- when someone else is impacted or is forced to sacrifice what is important to them.

Between Cleveland Park and North Cleveland Park, there are thousands of people who would use the pool. There are a handful of people who live on Quebec and Idaho who are "right there" Some of them support a pool, some are willing to fight it vigorously. I hope people who support this will be willing to show up at what I assume will be numerous public meetings to keep DGS and DPR on track to do this. If the city and Councilmember wanted to put more pools in at the other playgrounds listed, I would support it. I don't think Macomb is big enough; at Turtle Park, the baseball lobby trumped the pool supporters and Palisades isn't exactly central to the Ward or anyone other than the people who live there.

Cleveland Park, McLean Gardens and Vaughan Place, all neighborhoods or major housing areas very near the Hearst site, all have their own swimming pools.

And we can't use them.

So why not push for a pool site in your neighborhood then? Why ruin a perfectly good park and a large field and tennis courts that the neighborhood bordering the park want to keep/

Hearst is my neighborhood, that is why I am pushing for it.

+1

I agree with fighting to keep the trees, but there is room for a pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are public tennis courts at UDC (three blocks away) and the Newark St park in McLean Gardens. In addition, there are courts at Sidwell, the Cathedral, Rose Park, Livingston Playground, Lafayette Playground and on and on. Look at an aerial, there are tennis courts, most of them public, all over the place.

No public outdoor pools.

That is why we need one. And, why is anyone assuming Hearst would lose tennis courts? No one from DPR has suggested that, so let's not let the strawman win that argument.

Sidwell, the Cathedral, etc. are private courts. UDC is usually closed to the community.

No one has seen a plan for Hearst yet, but it's unlikely a pool could be shoehorned in without taking out existing facilities. If I had to choose something to go, however, I'd get rid of the turf field and the basketball courts at the top of the hill nearest the school. They could easily be relocated to the other side of the school building near Tilden St.

I am not sure why you suggest this. Look at the placement of the soccer field. Move it closer to the hill.

The trees should of course, stay, the courts can go on top of a field house, or astride a pool. There is plenty of space for the courts, a pool and the full size field.

Anonymous wrote:There are public tennis courts at UDC (three blocks away) and the Newark St park in McLean Gardens. In addition, there are courts at Sidwell, the Cathedral, Rose Park, Livingston Playground, Lafayette Playground and on and on. Look at an aerial, there are tennis courts, most of them public, all over the place.

No public outdoor pools.

That is why we need one. And, why is anyone assuming Hearst would lose tennis courts? No one from DPR has suggested that, so let's not let the strawman win that argument.

The McLean/Newark park is an example of dumb DPR thinking at its worst. What logical person would locate a dog park immediately uphill from both a children's playground and community vegetable gardens? A law of physics is that shit (and urine) flow down hill.

Anonymous wrote:There are public tennis courts at UDC (three blocks away) and the Newark St park in McLean Gardens. In addition, there are courts at Sidwell, the Cathedral, Rose Park, Livingston Playground, Lafayette Playground and on and on. Look at an aerial, there are tennis courts, most of them public, all over the place.

No public outdoor pools.

That is why we need one. And, why is anyone assuming Hearst would lose tennis courts? No one from DPR has suggested that, so let's not let the strawman win that argument.

Sidwell, the Cathedral, etc. are private courts. UDC is usually closed to the community.

No one has seen a plan for Hearst yet, but it's unlikely a pool could be shoehorned in without taking out existing facilities. If I had to choose something to go, however, I'd get rid of the turf field and the basketball courts at the top of the hill nearest the school. They could easily be relocated to the other side of the school building near Tilden St.