Anonymous wrote:Maybe it should be but that isn't how the capital budget and construction process works.

Exploration = should there be a pool at this park (answer was yes).

Planning = there will be a pool! Let's figure out what will it look like and how much will it cost, how long will it take to build.

True 'dat. Which is why "DC" still stands for "Dysfunctional City."

Anonymous wrote:It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

I'd be interested, too, if someone can explain where it will go. So far the only site options at the park seem to be where the tennis courts are and where the Hearst artificial turf field and basketball court are located. If either site is pursued, these facilities will have to be relocated, so the question would be where?

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it should be but that isn't how the capital budget and construction process works.

Exploration = should there be a pool at this park (answer was yes).

Planning = there will be a pool! Let's figure out what will it look like and how much will it cost, how long will it take to build.

How about 'where will we put it?' and 'what will we do with the tennis courts?' and 'how do we keep the full-sized playing field?' and 'how to we the above while maintaining the mature tree canopy?'

It seems like there is enough room for a pool: I'd be interested.

Maybe it should be but that isn't how the capital budget and construction process works.

Exploration = should there be a pool at this park (answer was yes).

Planning = there will be a pool! Let's figure out what will it look like and how much will it cost, how long will it take to build.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another neighbor who would like to see the possibility of a pool explored at least. Certainly wouldn't rule it out at this stage. But would also like to see some more shade in the playground. And definitely do not want the upper field touched since it was just redone.

You are past the exploration stage. The project is off and running, there will be a pool. Just a matter of what it will look like and how to try to fit everyone's competing goals and desires in a very small space.

If they don't have actual drawings with where the pool would go and how it would work with other elements in the park, they are still exploring it. They might be committed to doing it, but they don't seem to know how they would do it. Or at least they are not telling people. And to reiterate I am very supportive of a pool.

fine, but this is not an "exploration stage". that was two years ago when the idea was first discussed and the community canvassed with online surveys. this is now the "planning stage" where they use the budget that they have already been allotted to design and build the pool.

i think the Hearst school community (PTA) should partner with DPR to purchase sails for shade in the Hearst/ DPR playground, while also planting trees in that upper area. but that is a separate question than the pool and should be discussed separately.

Pardon me if I seem daft, but shouldn't the "exploration stage" be the initial feasibility stage, in which the likely size, configuration and siting of a pool is identified. As part of that initial assessment, there would be consideration of impact on other facilities (such as the tennis courts) and where and at what costs they will be rebuilt in the park. It seems that this hasn't been done yet and if it has, DPR is not sharing any information. For example, would the likely pool and tennis court siting require significant regrading and construction of retaining walls, all of which are expensive?

Only at that stage, is it possible to develop costs estimates to inform decisions on budgeting, including a full facilities scenario, a partial scenario (with trade-offs) and a no-build scenario (particularly if all-in costs for a pool, pool house, new tennis courts, renovated field, etc prove to be too high).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Have we pushed for the Fort Bayard Park at River Road and Western Avenue. Federally owned and maintained but nearly unused by the neighborhood compared to the amount of land. This Federal land could be handed over to the city. It is not doing the American citizens any good. But the neighborhood could really make use of it. Have we tried to see about Fort Reno and other land around Alice Deal? The Hearst field is already well used and I think a pool would be pushing out soccer players etc, just as would have happened at Turtle Park if a pool had been included in the new design.
Joan, in Friendship Heights

This is the same argument used by Cliven Bundy to appropriate federal land for himself and his cattle. He is nearby, so why can't he just have it?

NPS will stand firm against this sort of provincial nonsense; it's a non-starter

Yup, won't happen; and if it did, it should be used for a school. Ward 3 does not have enough schools for the population.

Why does DC need more elementary schools when John Eaton is 60% OOB and Hearst is significantly higher than that. If more school capacity is needed, DCPS needs to throttle back OOB spots as kids move through the school.

In any case, DC is not going to locate a new school on a small site (even if they did own it) on the MD border on Western Ave.
A much more appropriate site for a new school, if one is needed, is the Second District police station site on Idaho Ave. But not DC is doubling down there by building a 50 unit homeless shelter, so that site will never be a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another neighbor who would like to see the possibility of a pool explored at least. Certainly wouldn't rule it out at this stage. But would also like to see some more shade in the playground. And definitely do not want the upper field touched since it was just redone.

You are past the exploration stage. The project is off and running, there will be a pool. Just a matter of what it will look like and how to try to fit everyone's competing goals and desires in a very small space.

So please explain how? Where will the pool go and what facilities will have to be lost for the pool? Or if not facilities are impacted, where will the pool go? Don't pretend that this is the DC government version of how one can eat lots of cake and lose weight at the same time. Most people are smarter than that.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people in Cleveland Park already use the Cleveland Park pool. DCs track record in maintaining and operating its facilities is checkered.

To say the least... The Wilson pool was spectacular when it was built, but so far DC DPR has poorly maintained it and understaffed it.

Anonymous wrote:The city tried turtle park already. The baseball (NWLL) people had enough power to kill the idea, even though there were regular people who wanted it there.

Ft Bayard is NPS property and not centrally located. Non-Starter.

I believe the other potential sites across the ward were examined, and it was determined by DPR that Hearst was the most viable site.

There are hundreds of nearby households who want it there and it is already funded.

So the users of Turtle Park vetoed a pool, the Palisades Park community vetoed a pool and now folks want to use some non-scientific on-line survey to run roughshod over the needs and desires of the neighborhood that directly borders Hearst park?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another neighbor who would like to see the possibility of a pool explored at least. Certainly wouldn't rule it out at this stage. But would also like to see some more shade in the playground. And definitely do not want the upper field touched since it was just redone.

You are past the exploration stage. The project is off and running, there will be a pool. Just a matter of what it will look like and how to try to fit everyone's competing goals and desires in a very small space.

If they don't have actual drawings with where the pool would go and how it would work with other elements in the park, they are still exploring it. They might be committed to doing it, but they don't seem to know how they would do it. Or at least they are not telling people. And to reiterate I am very supportive of a pool.

fine, but this is not an "exploration stage". that was two years ago when the idea was first discussed and the community canvassed with online surveys. this is now the "planning stage" where they use the budget that they have already been allotted to design and build the pool.

i think the Hearst school community (PTA) should partner with DPR to purchase sails for shade in the Hearst/ DPR playground, while also planting trees in that upper area. but that is a separate question than the pool and should be discussed separately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another neighbor who would like to see the possibility of a pool explored at least. Certainly wouldn't rule it out at this stage. But would also like to see some more shade in the playground. And definitely do not want the upper field touched since it was just redone.

You are past the exploration stage. The project is off and running, there will be a pool. Just a matter of what it will look like and how to try to fit everyone's competing goals and desires in a very small space.

If they don't have actual drawings with where the pool would go and how it would work with other elements in the park, they are still exploring it. They might be committed to doing it, but they don't seem to know how they would do it. Or at least they are not telling people. And to reiterate I am very supportive of a pool.

Anonymous wrote:Another neighbor who would like to see the possibility of a pool explored at least. Certainly wouldn't rule it out at this stage. But would also like to see some more shade in the playground. And definitely do not want the upper field touched since it was just redone.

You are past the exploration stage. The project is off and running, there will be a pool. Just a matter of what it will look like and how to try to fit everyone's competing goals and desires in a very small space.

Another neighbor who would like to see the possibility of a pool explored at least. Certainly wouldn't rule it out at this stage. But would also like to see some more shade in the playground. And definitely do not want the upper field touched since it was just redone.

Anonymous wrote:

Have we pushed for the Fort Bayard Park at River Road and Western Avenue. Federally owned and maintained but nearly unused by the neighborhood compared to the amount of land. This Federal land could be handed over to the city. It is not doing the American citizens any good. But the neighborhood could really make use of it. Have we tried to see about Fort Reno and other land around Alice Deal? The Hearst field is already well used and I think a pool would be pushing out soccer players etc, just as would have happened at Turtle Park if a pool had been included in the new design.
Joan, in Friendship Heights

This is the same argument used by Cliven Bundy to appropriate federal land for himself and his cattle. He is nearby, so why can't he just have it?

NPS will stand firm against this sort of provincial nonsense; it's a non-starter

Yup, won't happen; and if it did, it should be used for a school. Ward 3 does not have enough schools for the population.