Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Which is actually fine because DC in the summer, when the pool would be in use, is hot, in case you weren't familiar.

A pool needs sun and shouldn't be in shadow much of the day. A much better spot for a pool at Hearst would be south of the basketball court and west of the shelter house. The site is gently sloped but level in part. It's a short gradual walk from the Hearst school parking lot, which is perfect for pool parking when school is not in session in the summer. It's also near the playground, which is perfect for families with kids. The site gets sun for much of the day. Best of all, a pool would not displace anything there -- no tennis courts, fields, tall trees, etc. would be harmed by the construction . There's also a good buffer from adjacent homes. A win-win site.

The problem is that's not DPR land. Looking at the DC Atlas and the Google satellite photos, it looks like DPR's land only extends as far north as about the northern edge of the soccer field. To the west the right-of-way for Idaho Avenue goes up to the back of the bleachers. So what you're talking about is a combination of DCPS and DDOT land. You'd think it wouldn't be a big deal to get agencies to work together, but it is.

The location immediately south of the basketball courts and immediately west of the DPR shelter in not in the old idaho Ave right of way. Even if were, DDOT is not going to extend Idaho Ave and routinely has surrendered old rights of way for recreational purposes (see old Klingle Road, now a trail). If you look at DPR's plans, their programming and renovations include all of Hearst Park and playground basically up to the school area.

Don't take my word for it. Go look in the DC Atlas, http://atlasplus.dcgis.dc.gov/ . Set the base map to DC Property Basemap. The land assigned to DPR is square 1905, lot 802. The land assigned to DCPS is square 1905, lot 8. The right-of-way for Idaho Avenue isn't assigned a lot and square but you can see where it runs.

DDOT didn't surrender the ROW for Klingle Road. It's a trail, but it's still administered by DDOT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Which is actually fine because DC in the summer, when the pool would be in use, is hot, in case you weren't familiar.

A pool needs sun and shouldn't be in shadow much of the day. A much better spot for a pool at Hearst would be south of the basketball court and west of the shelter house. The site is gently sloped but level in part. It's a short gradual walk from the Hearst school parking lot, which is perfect for pool parking when school is not in session in the summer. It's also near the playground, which is perfect for families with kids. The site gets sun for much of the day. Best of all, a pool would not displace anything there -- no tennis courts, fields, tall trees, etc. would be harmed by the construction . There's also a good buffer from adjacent homes. A win-win site.

The problem is that's not DPR land. Looking at the DC Atlas and the Google satellite photos, it looks like DPR's land only extends as far north as about the northern edge of the soccer field. To the west the right-of-way for Idaho Avenue goes up to the back of the bleachers. So what you're talking about is a combination of DCPS and DDOT land. You'd think it wouldn't be a big deal to get agencies to work together, but it is.

The location immediately south of the basketball courts and immediately west of the DPR shelter in not in the old idaho Ave right of way. Even if were, DDOT is not going to extend Idaho Ave and routinely has surrendered old rights of way for recreational purposes (see old Klingle Road, now a trail). If you look at DPR's plans, their programming and renovations include all of Hearst Park and playground basically up to the school area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Which is actually fine because DC in the summer, when the pool would be in use, is hot, in case you weren't familiar.

A pool needs sun and shouldn't be in shadow much of the day. A much better spot for a pool at Hearst would be south of the basketball court and west of the shelter house. The site is gently sloped but level in part. It's a short gradual walk from the Hearst school parking lot, which is perfect for pool parking when school is not in session in the summer. It's also near the playground, which is perfect for families with kids. The site gets sun for much of the day. Best of all, a pool would not displace anything there -- no tennis courts, fields, tall trees, etc. would be harmed by the construction . There's also a good buffer from adjacent homes. A win-win site.

The problem is that's not DPR land. Looking at the DC Atlas and the Google satellite photos, it looks like DPR's land only extends as far north as about the northern edge of the soccer field. To the west the right-of-way for Idaho Avenue goes up to the back of the bleachers. So what you're talking about is a combination of DCPS and DDOT land. You'd think it wouldn't be a big deal to get agencies to work together, but it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Which is actually fine because DC in the summer, when the pool would be in use, is hot, in case you weren't familiar.

A pool needs sun and shouldn't be in shadow much of the day. A much better spot for a pool at Hearst would be south of the basketball court and west of the shelter house. The site is gently sloped but level in part. It's a short gradual walk from the Hearst school parking lot, which is perfect for pool parking when school is not in session in the summer. It's also near the playground, which is perfect for families with kids. The site gets sun for much of the day. Best of all, a pool would not displace anything there -- no tennis courts, fields, tall trees, etc. would be harmed by the construction . There's also a good buffer from adjacent homes. A win-win site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Which is actually fine because DC in the summer, when the pool would be in use, is hot, in case you weren't familiar.

Anonymous wrote:Under the circumstances the pool plans look ok. However they should consider another location in the park if it fits. The problem is that the indicated site always will be in shadow from about 1 PM until closing time because of the location of the poool house and the slope topography to the south and the west, not to mention the trees that surround the site on the slopes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the tennis court location for the pool to me? As I understand it, the proposal is to take just one tennis court (the SW corner one, closest to the 37th and Quebec intersection) for the swimming pool. A "DC DPR-standard" sized pool, plus the structure for toilets, changing rooms and mechanical, as well as the fenced deck and area around the pool, will fit entirely within the footprint of one tennis court. I was over at Hearst two days ago, and I'm still having a really difficult time envisioning this. So would the pool adjoin the fence of the remaining two tennis courts? Or would the pool house be placed there? It's hard to see how this all fits in a tennis court, unless the pool is really small, the pool house is really small, and the deck area is really small. If the pool is wedged between the tennis courts and the pool house, it will feel really narrow and hemmed in. If the pool is against the south slope and the west slope, it will feel like being at the bottom of a bathtub. Either way, the site will be shaded basically all of the time. Perhaps someone who has seen the schematic plan with proposed dimensions can shed some light (no pun intended) on the pool site. Anyone?

Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?

site plan etc here https://dgs.dc.gov/page/hearst-park-and-pool-improvement-project

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the tennis court location for the pool to me? As I understand it, the proposal is to take just one tennis court (the SW corner one, closest to the 37th and Quebec intersection) for the swimming pool. A "DC DPR-standard" sized pool, plus the structure for toilets, changing rooms and mechanical, as well as the fenced deck and area around the pool, will fit entirely within the footprint of one tennis court. I was over at Hearst two days ago, and I'm still having a really difficult time envisioning this. So would the pool adjoin the fence of the remaining two tennis courts? Or would the pool house be placed there? It's hard to see how this all fits in a tennis court, unless the pool is really small, the pool house is really small, and the deck area is really small. If the pool is wedged between the tennis courts and the pool house, it will feel really narrow and hemmed in. If the pool is against the south slope and the west slope, it will feel like being at the bottom of a bathtub. Either way, the site will be shaded basically all of the time. Perhaps someone who has seen the schematic plan with proposed dimensions can shed some light (no pun intended) on the pool site. Anyone?

Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the tennis court location for the pool to me? As I understand it, the proposal is to take just one tennis court (the SW corner one, closest to the 37th and Quebec intersection) for the swimming pool. A "DC DPR-standard" sized pool, plus the structure for toilets, changing rooms and mechanical, as well as the fenced deck and area around the pool, will fit entirely within the footprint of one tennis court. I was over at Hearst two days ago, and I'm still having a really difficult time envisioning this. So would the pool adjoin the fence of the remaining two tennis courts? Or would the pool house be placed there? It's hard to see how this all fits in a tennis court, unless the pool is really small, the pool house is really small, and the deck area is really small. If the pool is wedged between the tennis courts and the pool house, it will feel really narrow and hemmed in. If the pool is against the south slope and the west slope, it will feel like being at the bottom of a bathtub. Either way, the site will be shaded basically all of the time. Perhaps someone who has seen the schematic plan with proposed dimensions can shed some light (no pun intended) on the pool site. Anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People want a pool. It is viable at Hearst. There is no other option and it isn't worth pulling this proposal for the unicorn at Ft Reno.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:
And FWIW there is much more parking around Hearst, especially in the summer when school is out and the parking would be needed.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:
It is ridiculous that it has taken this long. This thread was started in 2015.

Enough.

Do you really think that if you just say "Next" and "Enough" enough times you'll bring people over to your way of thinking?

Nope - it is rhetorical. The opponents keep coming up with ridiculous, false and easily dismissable arguments. They can keep throwing stuff at the wall but none of it is sticking.

Next.

The way to dismiss the arguments is to share the Hearst studies ... if there are any.

What needs to be studied and why? They are proposing to replace a hardscape surface with a similarly sized hardscaped surface in a park in an urban area. They are not proposing to relocate lower Manhattan to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. DC has layers of environmental reviews that this project will be required to undergo before any permits are issued.

This is just a NIMBY talking point and it is only a stalling tactic and has nothing to do with any real concern for the environment or water run-off - if the neighbors were actually concerned about the environment they'd have raised them years ago and all sold their cars but that hasn't happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People want a pool. It is viable at Hearst. There is no other option and it isn't worth pulling this proposal for the unicorn at Ft Reno.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:
And FWIW there is much more parking around Hearst, especially in the summer when school is out and the parking would be needed.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:
It is ridiculous that it has taken this long. This thread was started in 2015.

Enough.

Do you really think that if you just say "Next" and "Enough" enough times you'll bring people over to your way of thinking?

Nope - it is rhetorical. The opponents keep coming up with ridiculous, false and easily dismissable arguments. They can keep throwing stuff at the wall but none of it is sticking.

Next.

The way to dismiss the arguments is to share the Hearst studies ... if there are any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People want a pool. It is viable at Hearst. There is no other option and it isn't worth pulling this proposal for the unicorn at Ft Reno.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:
And FWIW there is much more parking around Hearst, especially in the summer when school is out and the parking would be needed.

Next.

Anonymous wrote:
It is ridiculous that it has taken this long. This thread was started in 2015.

Enough.

Do you really think that if you just say "Next" and "Enough" enough times you'll bring people over to your way of thinking?

Nope - it is rhetorical. The opponents keep coming up with ridiculous, false and easily dismissable arguments. They can keep throwing stuff at the wall but none of it is sticking.

Next.