Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 12:27     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.


And so what? A pool where the tennis courts are would not impact the soccer field.

In any case 34 hours a week of use is not much - some parks are utilized 7 days a week including into the evening if they have lights.


But it obviously would impact the tennis courts. And then where would you put them? Why, take a portion of the field, naturally. Hearst is a small park, certainly compared to Turtle Park which is like three times its size. Adding a pool is like squeezing a balloon. Something's got to give. DPR has been very reticent (some might say obfuscatory with their "dimensionless" plans) to state what will have to be sacrificed at Hearst if a pool is squeezed in there.


You're giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to go up the ladder from "reticent" and past "obfuscatory" all the way to "deceptive."
Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 12:20     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.


This is something I happen to know a lot about - the permitted usage of a field does not in any way get reflected in the actual usage - all of the leagues reserve more time than they actually need to use.

As an example I coach one of my kids Little League teams so I know exactly what is on the permit and how the field is utilized and the field is utilized for about half of the permitted time.

As an example the permitted schedule that was linked to above includes hours up to 730PM but Hearst does not have lights so at this point in the fall there is no way anyone is using the field past 630PM unless the soccer players are wearing headlamps.



What you are saying has more to do with the way DPR treats baseball as opposed to other sports. DPR reserves two thirds of their field space for baseball players, who make up maybe 10% of field users. For a DPR baseball field, two games in the same day would be considered heavy use. Fields where sports other than baseball are allowed are used very intensively.

I'm a Stoddert parent and I see the schedule, and I know that on Saturday there were 13 matches at Hearst, ten second grade games in the morning and three high school games in the afternoon. First game started at 8AM and last game ended at 5PM. When my son played NWLL there would typically be two games a day at Palisades and Stoddert. NWLL has an 8-week season (soccer is 9) so each of those fields would host 16 games a season -- very close to what Hearst sees in a single day.


Wait! I thought that the NIMBY neighbors just want to keep Hearst as a private, gated park for themselves and that's why they oppose a pool. You mean that "others" actually use Hearst Park?!
Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 12:19     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.


And so what? A pool where the tennis courts are would not impact the soccer field.

In any case 34 hours a week of use is not much - some parks are utilized 7 days a week including into the evening if they have lights.


But it obviously would impact the tennis courts. And then where would you put them? Why, take a portion of the field, naturally. Hearst is a small park, certainly compared to Turtle Park which is like three times its size. Adding a pool is like squeezing a balloon. Something's got to give. DPR has been very reticent (some might say obfuscatory with their "dimensionless" plans) to state what will have to be sacrificed at Hearst if a pool is squeezed in there.
Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 12:09     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.


This is something I happen to know a lot about - the permitted usage of a field does not in any way get reflected in the actual usage - all of the leagues reserve more time than they actually need to use.

As an example I coach one of my kids Little League teams so I know exactly what is on the permit and how the field is utilized and the field is utilized for about half of the permitted time.

As an example the permitted schedule that was linked to above includes hours up to 730PM but Hearst does not have lights so at this point in the fall there is no way anyone is using the field past 630PM unless the soccer players are wearing headlamps.



What you are saying has more to do with the way DPR treats baseball as opposed to other sports. DPR reserves two thirds of their field space for baseball players, who make up maybe 10% of field users. For a DPR baseball field, two games in the same day would be considered heavy use. Fields where sports other than baseball are allowed are used very intensively.

I'm a Stoddert parent and I see the schedule, and I know that on Saturday there were 13 matches at Hearst, ten second grade games in the morning and three high school games in the afternoon. First game started at 8AM and last game ended at 5PM. When my son played NWLL there would typically be two games a day at Palisades and Stoddert. NWLL has an 8-week season (soccer is 9) so each of those fields would host 16 games a season -- very close to what Hearst sees in a single day.
Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 10:09     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.


This is something I happen to know a lot about - the permitted usage of a field does not in any way get reflected in the actual usage - all of the leagues reserve more time than they actually need to use.

As an example I coach one of my kids Little League teams so I know exactly what is on the permit and how the field is utilized and the field is utilized for about half of the permitted time.

As an example the permitted schedule that was linked to above includes hours up to 730PM but Hearst does not have lights so at this point in the fall there is no way anyone is using the field past 630PM unless the soccer players are wearing headlamps.

Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 10:00     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.


And so what? A pool where the tennis courts are would not impact the soccer field.

In any case 34 hours a week of use is not much - some parks are utilized 7 days a week including into the evening if they have lights.
Anonymous
Post 10/23/2017 09:28     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.


If you look at the schedule that was posted upthread you'll see that the soccer field was scheduled 34 hours a week in the spring. I would bet that puts it in the top 10% of DPR facilities in terms of utilization. Most DPR facilities are very lightly used.
Anonymous
Post 10/22/2017 23:17     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Compared to other parks, it is very underutilized. Hosting Saturday Stoddert soccer and some afternoon practices on the field is not on par with other rec facilities in DC.
Anonymous
Post 10/22/2017 22:32     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:Not sure what in the above is false.

The only people who don't want this are a handful of residents who live immediately around the site. They treat this as their private park, yet we all pay taxes. They think they should control it based on proximity. It doesn't work like that.

So they come up with every reason possible, most of them untenable and false, to try to gin up support for their side.

Facts: The park is underutilized, there is plenty of space, none of the wonderful areas will be impacted, and there is plenty of parking, particularly over the summer when the pool would be used and Hearst and Sidwell are not in session.




Some “underutilized private park” that hosts hundreds of soccer players and their parents from all over every weekend.

Your “argument” is pathetic.
Anonymous
Post 10/22/2017 19:41     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Not sure what in the above is false.

The only people who don't want this are a handful of residents who live immediately around the site. They treat this as their private park, yet we all pay taxes. They think they should control it based on proximity. It doesn't work like that.

So they come up with every reason possible, most of them untenable and false, to try to gin up support for their side.

Facts: The park is underutilized, there is plenty of space, none of the wonderful areas will be impacted, and there is plenty of parking, particularly over the summer when the pool would be used and Hearst and Sidwell are not in session.

Anonymous
Post 10/22/2017 19:08     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And a pool won't impact directly or indirectly soccer, t-ball, ultimate frisbee or anything else that might take place on the field.


Isn’t one pool site alternative on part of the existing field? Doesn’t another alternative show one or more tennis courts relocated on part of the existing field?Of course, construction of a pool may affect the field, by making it smaller.


At this point nobody knows for sure. They've shown three "sketches" but we've been assured that they're not to scale so they're essentially meaningless when it comes to the details. And details like whether the field will be shrunk matter quite a bit.


Isn't keeping the field the same size NIMBY and segregationist?


You lost me. Please use the /sarcasm tag if you're kidding.


Probably a sarcastic response to sh@#tty aspersions like this:

"Truth: Unless you go back to the race baiting 1960's no other community successfully resisted any proposal for a pool in Ward 3. This is not the last remaining space in NW DC though this is such a vague statement as to be meaningless but it doesn't matter as this is space in DPR's inventory and the pool needs to go on DPR owned property. And again there is nothing inhospitable about this space - the only thing that is inhospitable here are the Cleveland Park neighbors who think this little used DPR facility is their private park exclusively for their benefit.

The opponents of the pool need to be smarter or alternately more honest if they want to be taken seriously by people in other parts of the Ward - either come up with some coherent and supportable arguments against the pool at this site or be honest that you just don't want the park to be more intensely used rather than coming up with the nonsense that made up this letter.
Anonymous
Post 10/22/2017 09:21     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And a pool won't impact directly or indirectly soccer, t-ball, ultimate frisbee or anything else that might take place on the field.


Isn’t one pool site alternative on part of the existing field? Doesn’t another alternative show one or more tennis courts relocated on part of the existing field?Of course, construction of a pool may affect the field, by making it smaller.


At this point nobody knows for sure. They've shown three "sketches" but we've been assured that they're not to scale so they're essentially meaningless when it comes to the details. And details like whether the field will be shrunk matter quite a bit.


Isn't keeping the field the same size NIMBY and segregationist?


You lost me. Please use the /sarcasm tag if you're kidding.
Anonymous
Post 10/21/2017 23:44     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And a pool won't impact directly or indirectly soccer, t-ball, ultimate frisbee or anything else that might take place on the field.


Isn’t one pool site alternative on part of the existing field? Doesn’t another alternative show one or more tennis courts relocated on part of the existing field?Of course, construction of a pool may affect the field, by making it smaller.


At this point nobody knows for sure. They've shown three "sketches" but we've been assured that they're not to scale so they're essentially meaningless when it comes to the details. And details like whether the field will be shrunk matter quite a bit.


Isn't keeping the field the same size NIMBY and segregationist?
Anonymous
Post 10/21/2017 17:44     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And a pool won't impact directly or indirectly soccer, t-ball, ultimate frisbee or anything else that might take place on the field.


Isn’t one pool site alternative on part of the existing field? Doesn’t another alternative show one or more tennis courts relocated on part of the existing field?Of course, construction of a pool may affect the field, by making it smaller.


At this point nobody knows for sure. They've shown three "sketches" but we've been assured that they're not to scale so they're essentially meaningless when it comes to the details. And details like whether the field will be shrunk matter quite a bit.
Anonymous
Post 10/21/2017 16:54     Subject: Hearst Playground story in Current
Anonymous wrote:And a pool won't impact directly or indirectly soccer, t-ball, ultimate frisbee or anything else that might take place on the field.


Isn’t one pool site alternative on part of the existing field? Doesn’t another alternative show one or more tennis courts relocated on part of the existing field?Of course, construction of a pool may affect the field, by making it smaller.