Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

great idea! Maybe before our legislators add more light, they should focus on fixing the light pollution we have now. Then we can proceed with examining more light. Because we all trust the Council and Mayor to be amazing, proactive problem-solvers!
Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

ng
So you are intolerant of other considerations. OK. Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps you should move from CP to a tiny house etc? I'm guessing theres more you can do.

I don't live in CP but what are the other considerations? Some unsubstantiated nonsense people in Ward 3 will come up with about aesthetics? Streetlights should be illuminating and energy efficient. So long as they are safe I don't care if the glow makes me 13 year old car look yellow instead of white.

And some people do care? Lighting and light pollution are pretty big deals. Can affect how people sleep , how things look etc. Personally I'd like my street more illuminated for safety reasons . But I'm open to other perspectives.

The Washington Post explains pretty succinctly today why the DC government should be attentive to not make the city even brighter at night, including lby adding more bright illumination to our parks.

“ At the county level, the District of Columbia is the most light-polluted region of the country, with more than 200,000 times the artificial brightness of America’s darkest place, the city and borough of Yakutat in Alaska.? Among the nation’s largest cities, Washington also stands out as being the farthest removed from a place with clear night skies...”

I'd love to see that actual article.

In any case LED lights can be designed to better concentrate their light downward which helps to reduce light pollution and they also reduce energy consumption.

Park land is scarce in DC -if lights enable us to better utilize recreational facilities then they should be used.

If you are concerned about light pollution there are plenty of other places to concentrate - I guarantee you could keep yourself busy for years working to get commercial property owners in your neighborhood to keep their buildings completely dark at night when they aren't being used.

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

ng
So you are intolerant of other considerations. OK. Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps you should move from CP to a tiny house etc? I'm guessing theres more you can do.

I don't live in CP but what are the other considerations? Some unsubstantiated nonsense people in Ward 3 will come up with about aesthetics? Streetlights should be illuminating and energy efficient. So long as they are safe I don't care if the glow makes me 13 year old car look yellow instead of white.

And some people do care? Lighting and light pollution are pretty big deals. Can affect how people sleep , how things look etc. Personally I'd like my street more illuminated for safety reasons . But I'm open to other perspectives.

The Washington Post explains pretty succinctly today why the DC government should be attentive to not make the city even brighter at night, including lby adding more bright illumination to our parks.

“ At the county level, the District of Columbia is the most light-polluted region of the country, with more than 200,000 times the artificial brightness of America’s darkest place, the city and borough of Yakutat in Alaska.? Among the nation’s largest cities, Washington also stands out as being the farthest removed from a place with clear night skies...”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is already an outdoor basketball court at Hearst.

In terms of tennis courts, there are like 30 of them within a few blocks of Hearst, and as someone else already said, they are seldom used and when they are it is 2 or 4 people at a time, not the 4-10 that use a basketball court or the 30-50 that would be using a pool.

The Tennis players can use the free courts at McLean Gardens, Ft Reno, Rose park, UDC or Livingston, Lafayette or Turtle Park. The supply FAR outweights the demand for a dying sport.

DC puts too much emphasis on recreational basketball courts. That’s why Cora Masters Barry (Marion’s ex-wife) devoted considerable effort and resources to expanding tennis courts and programs in the District of Columbia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

That would really piss off the neighborhood.

Why? One one of the 4 sides of the park borders on homes and that side is below grade from the street so the lights would not be noticeable and there is plenty of on-street parking around the school.

There is an acute shortage of field time in DC especially on weeknights so lights here would really serve a need.

Lots of other DPR facilities have lights so if there is a need this one should too.

Having said that you'd really need a turf field if the lights were being installed to facilitate soccer as the extra use would quickly obliterate a grass field.

The main reason the neighbors would object is because they'd lose their illegal dogpark if the field were more intensely used and we know from this 200 page thread that the immediate neighbors think this is their own Gramercy Park and not a public resource.

That field is probably among the most intensely used fields in the city. Why isn't walking a dog a legit use? There is such a thing as light pollution. Mary Cheh is willing to band leaf blowers in the entire city because one constituent complained a noisy neighbor I would think she would appreciate the many concerns about destroying Hearst from hundreds of citizens. The only reason there is no pool on the field is because corrupt Cheh is tight with the Stoddert soccer crowd, where she was once an official and they said they needed the field.

In fact, there are homes directly on three sides of the park: Quebec on the south, Idaho on the southeast, and Springland Lane on the east.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

That would really piss off the neighborhood.

Why? One one of the 4 sides of the park borders on homes and that side is below grade from the street so the lights would not be noticeable and there is plenty of on-street parking around the school.

There is an acute shortage of field time in DC especially on weeknights so lights here would really serve a need.

Lots of other DPR facilities have lights so if there is a need this one should too.

Having said that you'd really need a turf field if the lights were being installed to facilitate soccer as the extra use would quickly obliterate a grass field.

The main reason the neighbors would object is because they'd lose their illegal dogpark if the field were more intensely used and we know from this 200 page thread that the immediate neighbors think this is their own Gramercy Park and not a public resource.

In fact, there are homes directly on three sides of the park: Quebec on the south, Idaho on the southeast, and Springland Lane on the east.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

That would really piss off the neighborhood.

Why? One one of the 4 sides of the park borders on homes and that side is below grade from the street so the lights would not be noticeable and there is plenty of on-street parking around the school.

There is an acute shortage of field time in DC especially on weeknights so lights here would really serve a need.

Lots of other DPR facilities have lights so if there is a need this one should too.

Having said that you'd really need a turf field if the lights were being installed to facilitate soccer as the extra use would quickly obliterate a grass field.

The main reason the neighbors would object is because they'd lose their illegal dogpark if the field were more intensely used and we know from this 200 page thread that the immediate neighbors think this is their own Gramercy Park and not a public resource.

That field is probably among the most intensely used fields in the city. Why isn't walking a dog a legit use? There is such a thing as light pollution. Mary Cheh is willing to band leaf blowers in the entire city because one constituent complained a noisy neighbor I would think she would appreciate the many concerns about destroying Hearst from hundreds of citizens. The only reason there is no pool on the field is because corrupt Cheh is tight with the Stoddert soccer crowd, where she was once an official and they said they needed the field.

In fact, there are homes directly on three sides of the park: Quebec on the south, Idaho on the southeast, and Springland Lane on the east.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of lights, they should install lights for the field at Hearst so it can be used into the evening.

That would really piss off the neighborhood.

Why? One one of the 4 sides of the park borders on homes and that side is below grade from the street so the lights would not be noticeable and there is plenty of on-street parking around the school.

There is an acute shortage of field time in DC especially on weeknights so lights here would really serve a need.

Lots of other DPR facilities have lights so if there is a need this one should too.

Having said that you'd really need a turf field if the lights were being installed to facilitate soccer as the extra use would quickly obliterate a grass field.

The main reason the neighbors would object is because they'd lose their illegal dogpark if the field were more intensely used and we know from this 200 page thread that the immediate neighbors think this is their own Gramercy Park and not a public resource.

Anonymous wrote:There is already an outdoor basketball court at Hearst.

In terms of tennis courts, there are like 30 of them within a few blocks of Hearst, and as someone else already said, they are seldom used and when they are it is 2 or 4 people at a time, not the 4-10 that use a basketball court or the 30-50 that would be using a pool.

The Tennis players can use the free courts at McLean Gardens, Ft Reno, Rose park, UDC or Livingston, Lafayette or Turtle Park. The supply FAR outweights the demand for a dying sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

ng
So you are intolerant of other considerations. OK. Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps you should move from CP to a tiny house etc? I'm guessing theres more you can do.

I don't live in CP but what are the other considerations? Some unsubstantiated nonsense people in Ward 3 will come up with about aesthetics? Streetlights should be illuminating and energy efficient. So long as they are safe I don't care if the glow makes me 13 year old car look yellow instead of white.

And some people do care? Lighting and light pollution are pretty big deals. Can affect how people sleep , how things look etc. Personally I'd like my street more illuminated for safety reasons . But I'm open to other perspectives.

Anonymous wrote:There is already an outdoor basketball court at Hearst.

In terms of tennis courts, there are like 30 of them within a few blocks of Hearst, and as someone else already said, they are seldom used and when they are it is 2 or 4 people at a time, not the 4-10 that use a basketball court or the 30-50 that would be using a pool.

The Tennis players can use the free courts at McLean Gardens, Ft Reno, Rose park, UDC or Livingston, Lafayette or Turtle Park. The supply FAR outweights the demand for a dying sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

ng
So you are intolerant of other considerations. OK. Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps you should move from CP to a tiny house etc? I'm guessing theres more you can do.

I don't live in CP but what are the other considerations? Some unsubstantiated nonsense people in Ward 3 will come up with about aesthetics? Streetlights should be illuminating and energy efficient. So long as they are safe I don't care if the glow makes me 13 year old car look yellow instead of white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does everyone know if they are going to have bright lights on the pool complex? Let’s hope not. Nothing would be worse than lighting up the concrete all night with ultra-bright flood lights. The last thing anyone wants is a year-round light polluter illuminated like a prison site in SE. if security is needed, surely a fence and motion sensors will do.

The oft repeated this pool will look and feel like a prison argument has reared its ugly head again as if anyone leaving in Cleveland Park has the faintest notion what a prison looks like or has set foot in SE DC except to attend a Nats game.

This is actually a real concern. Light pollution is a problem all over. Now DC is replacing the soft street lights which filter onto the leafy residential side streets of many Northwest neighborhoods with newer very high intensity, cobra lighting. I agree that we don’t want to see a concrete pool in a heretofore sylvan park lit up year-round like a high security prison yard.

No really this is not a concern and it is a stupid talking point. This pool is below the grade of the street and surrounded by trees. I can't fathom why it would be lit up when it is not in use (other DC pools are not) but to bleed onto nearby homes it would have to be lit by stadium type lighting on very high poles.

And this is for a separate thread but the bitching about energy efficient LED lights is just absurd - for some strange reason I've got one of these new LED street lights right outside my bedroom window (it is the only one I've seen in my NW neighborhood) and it doesn't bother us or anyone else and my next door neighbor complains about everything to us. Bring on the energy savings and the better lighting.

Not the PP, but have to comment - aesthetics vs cost/energy saving etc
May not be a.concern to you, which is fine. However, its valid to make decisions that take pros and cons into account, and your dismissiveness isnt that welcoming to people with a different perspective. The city of Rome is having a huge debate about "cool" vs "warm" light and how it impacts the aesthetic experience of the old city and its ruins. Do you think their concerns are "silly"? Livability should definitely take energy efficiency into account, but there are other metrics too like ambiance and enjoyment.

I care about the habitability of our planet. Full stop.

Street lights are for illumination not ambiance or enjoyment so if there are no health issues with LED's (and to date none have been found) we should pick the most efficient bulbs that are available and do it soon.

As I previously wrote I've got one in front of my bedroom and have had for more than a year and neither my spouse nor my neighbor have complained about it and both are complainers. The LED does do a much better job of illuminating our street.

ng
So you are intolerant of other considerations. OK. Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps you should move from CP to a tiny house etc? I'm guessing theres more you can do.

Anonymous wrote:There is already an outdoor basketball court at Hearst.

In terms of tennis courts, there are like 30 of them within a few blocks of Hearst, and as someone else already said, they are seldom used and when they are it is 2 or 4 people at a time, not the 4-10 that use a basketball court or the 30-50 that would be using a pool.

The Tennis players can use the free courts at McLean Gardens, Ft Reno, Rose park, UDC or Livingston, Lafayette or Turtle Park. The supply FAR outweights the demand for a dying sport.