Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR

You could wait and actually see plans when they are released and then comment on it.

+100

Clearly DGS is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. They decided to talk to the community to get input and concerns before developing a plan. Seemed like a very reasonable and sensible plan to me. Hear what the community thinks and then create a design with that feedback in mind. Instead, they are criticized for trying to deceive people by not having a plan before the community meetings.

Let's be honest here-- the neighbors who are against the "others" coming into their neighborhood regardless of what the plan will look like. Then there are people (like me and many that I know) who are interested in learning about it, open to the idea, and waiting to see the actual design before chaining ourselves to the trees.

If DGS was planning multiple rounds of feedback -- get feedback, develop plan, get feedback, revise plan, repeat until plan is acceptable -- then what you're saying would make sense. But it's pretty apparent that the pre-plan feedback will be the limit of public input. People are understandably upset that they're being asked to comment on a plan that doesn't exist.

This is becoming the modus operandi of many DC government agencies. In place of detail-focused public meetings (forget hearings), they have something called a public "charette." But it's more like a charade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR

You could wait and actually see plans when they are released and then comment on it.

+100

Clearly DGS is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. They decided to talk to the community to get input and concerns before developing a plan. Seemed like a very reasonable and sensible plan to me. Hear what the community thinks and then create a design with that feedback in mind. Instead, they are criticized for trying to deceive people by not having a plan before the community meetings.

Let's be honest here-- the neighbors who are against the "others" coming into their neighborhood regardless of what the plan will look like. Then there are people (like me and many that I know) who are interested in learning about it, open to the idea, and waiting to see the actual design before chaining ourselves to the trees.

This is a complete red-herring. The neighbors already have lots and lots of "others" coming into their neighborhood nearly every day. Think Sidwell Friends, Hearst School (still mostly out of boundary enrollment), with the vast majority of students and staff in both schools arriving by car. And Hearst Park is heavily used by people from outside the neighborhood, particularly the large playing field. That's partly the point: no one wants to lose this field.

Anonymous wrote:I really, really, really, really disagree with the idea that people who oppose the pool and other renovations are actually opposed to interlopers in the neighborhood. Many of us oppose the pool and other renovations because we oppose the pool and other renovations or environmental and historic reasons. I would be happy for Hearst to become the most popular open space in the city. That doesn't mean I want it turned into a sports plex with artificial turf and an Olympic sized pool.

+1 Very well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR

You could wait and actually see plans when they are released and then comment on it.

+100

Clearly DGS is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. They decided to talk to the community to get input and concerns before developing a plan. Seemed like a very reasonable and sensible plan to me. Hear what the community thinks and then create a design with that feedback in mind. Instead, they are criticized for trying to deceive people by not having a plan before the community meetings.

Let's be honest here-- the neighbors who are against the "others" coming into their neighborhood regardless of what the plan will look like. Then there are people (like me and many that I know) who are interested in learning about it, open to the idea, and waiting to see the actual design before chaining ourselves to the trees.

If DGS was planning multiple rounds of feedback -- get feedback, develop plan, get feedback, revise plan, repeat until plan is acceptable -- then what you're saying would make sense. But it's pretty apparent that the pre-plan feedback will be the limit of public input. People are understandably upset that they're being asked to comment on a plan that doesn't exist.

You are correct. The pool is not a 'plan' but rather a concept. And DPR's concept is trade-off free, even though honest observers know that space is finite and existing park uses are substantial. Something's gotta' give. Empty happy talk from DPR ignores this, assuming that everyone will be convinced that they eat lots of cake and yet lose weight at the same time. But most folks aren't that dumb. They know that there will be trade-offs. They just want to understand what they are and then have a meaningful public process in which to analyze and weigh them.

I really, really, really, really disagree with the idea that people who oppose the pool and other renovations are actually opposed to interlopers in the neighborhood. Many of us oppose the pool and other renovations because we oppose the pool and other renovations or environmental and historic reasons. I would be happy for Hearst to become the most popular open space in the city. That doesn't mean I want it turned into a sports plex with artificial turf and an Olympic sized pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR

You could wait and actually see plans when they are released and then comment on it.

+100

Clearly DGS is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. They decided to talk to the community to get input and concerns before developing a plan. Seemed like a very reasonable and sensible plan to me. Hear what the community thinks and then create a design with that feedback in mind. Instead, they are criticized for trying to deceive people by not having a plan before the community meetings.

Let's be honest here-- the neighbors who are against the "others" coming into their neighborhood regardless of what the plan will look like. Then there are people (like me and many that I know) who are interested in learning about it, open to the idea, and waiting to see the actual design before chaining ourselves to the trees.

If DGS was planning multiple rounds of feedback -- get feedback, develop plan, get feedback, revise plan, repeat until plan is acceptable -- then what you're saying would make sense. But it's pretty apparent that the pre-plan feedback will be the limit of public input. People are understandably upset that they're being asked to comment on a plan that doesn't exist.

PP: Moving the field? I don't get it. Does your plan include artificial turf? Because that is a deal breaker.

I am vehemently pro-pool and I would chain myself to the row of trees if they were threatened. I really don't think DGS is that stupid to consider any sort of tree removal from the 100 year oaks.

They should just "move" the field closer to the hill and build natural seating into the hill (and clean out the hill)

Also, no one uses the baseball field - none of the little leagues etc. Doesn't seem like there is much demand for that function.

If you move the field closer to the hill and eliminate the baseball diamond, then it opens up room for other uses, whether it is moving tennis courts or whatever.

I am not against people coming in to use the park at all. I am not even against the concept of a pool. I am hard-line opposed to encroaching in any way on the Hearst field and its surrounding trees. That must be preserved at all costs and that means no artificial turf.
The pool, if needed, should have been part of the original plan when the playground was renovated. By the way, that playground is great and is well used. The little turf soccer field is used late into the night which is also great. I don't like the bright lights but they seem to be on some kind of timer. The one draw back is that there is a lot of trash from those pick-up games that doesn't get picked up and is now falling down the hill. It would be nice if the people who used the little soccer field didn't litter so much.

Anonymous wrote:OR

You could wait and actually see plans when they are released and then comment on it.

+100

Clearly DGS is damned if they do and damned if they don't here. They decided to talk to the community to get input and concerns before developing a plan. Seemed like a very reasonable and sensible plan to me. Hear what the community thinks and then create a design with that feedback in mind. Instead, they are criticized for trying to deceive people by not having a plan before the community meetings.

Let's be honest here-- the neighbors who are against the "others" coming into their neighborhood regardless of what the plan will look like. Then there are people (like me and many that I know) who are interested in learning about it, open to the idea, and waiting to see the actual design before chaining ourselves to the trees.

OR

You could wait and actually see plans when they are released and then comment on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't know. But to spread falsehoods on this or other forums claiming that trees will be felled, or fields will be turfed or that "others" will be infecting the neighborhood is nothing but BS and hystrionics.

If nothing will be sacrificed, then why doesn't DPR release preliminary concept plans to show where the pool will be located. Either it will fit with all of the other park uses, or it will not. If DPR and Cheh are pushing this location without having even measured and sketched, then they're highly incompetent.

We have a winner - exactly what has happened. Site picked / now we have to try and shoehorn it all in. Skepticism is warranted.

Anonymous wrote:We don't know. But to spread falsehoods on this or other forums claiming that trees will be felled, or fields will be turfed or that "others" will be infecting the neighborhood is nothing but BS and hystrionics.

If nothing will be sacrificed, then why doesn't DPR release preliminary concept plans to show where the pool will be located. Either it will fit with all of the other park uses, or it will not. If DPR and Cheh are pushing this location without having even measured and sketched, then they're highly incompetent.

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The neighborhood people who want to keep people out and not share PUBLIC SPACE with others are the angry ones.

They use everyone else's neighborhoods yet don't want to be part of the broader community.

And, to a previous point, other neighborhoods in DC have outdoor public pools. Ward 3 doesn't. There isn't any reason someone who can walk to their own community pool would drive, bike or bus to this one.

No cat or dog in this fight, but it's understandable that frequent users of Hearst park don't want to destroy one of Northwest's few large (and heavily used) playing fields, tennis courts which are also much used and a beautiful tree canopy -- for a pool and lots of concrete. The opinions of those who heavily use the park need to count as well.

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that the people who are pro pool are a pretty angry crowd.

They really need to cool down.