Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are tennis courts in Ward 3, there are fields in Ward 3, there is no pool in Ward 3. The NIMBYs need to step off and accept that it's totally logical to replace either of these amenities with a pool in Ward 3. Some people will fight anything!

Where are the other public tennis courts? Just out of curiosity? Or are you suggesting that if it's only possible to have 2 of the 3 things, one of the 2 should be a pool?

From DPR page: http://dpr.dc.gov/page/tennis-courts

3 Chevy Chase Rec Ctr 5500 41st St., NW
Forest Hills 32nd & Brandywine Sts., NW
Fort Reno 41st & Chesapeake Sts., NW
Friendship Rec Ctr 4500 Van Ness St., NW
Hardy Rec Ctr 4500 Q St., NW
Hearst Rec Ctr 3600 Tilden St., NW
Newark St. Park 39th & Newark Sts., NW
Palisades Comm Ctr 5200 Sherrier Pl., NW

too bad Palisades was quick to object to a pool by getting an historic designation. You see so many tennis courts then move the pool there. remember, a pool is not just a physical pool. There's changing locations, there's mandatory fencing, there's equipment. A "pool" takes up more surface area than a lot of people choose to remember during debates. There's just not that space at Hearst. Take away the fields at Turtle Park if you're so desperate for a pool. Or, gasp! drive to Jelleff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are tennis courts in Ward 3, there are fields in Ward 3, there is no pool in Ward 3. The NIMBYs need to step off and accept that it's totally logical to replace either of these amenities with a pool in Ward 3. Some people will fight anything!

Where are the other public tennis courts? Just out of curiosity? Or are you suggesting that if it's only possible to have 2 of the 3 things, one of the 2 should be a pool?

From DPR page: http://dpr.dc.gov/page/tennis-courts

3 Chevy Chase Rec Ctr 5500 41st St., NW
Forest Hills 32nd & Brandywine Sts., NW
Fort Reno 41st & Chesapeake Sts., NW
Friendship Rec Ctr 4500 Van Ness St., NW
Hardy Rec Ctr 4500 Q St., NW
Hearst Rec Ctr 3600 Tilden St., NW
Newark St. Park 39th & Newark Sts., NW
Palisades Comm Ctr 5200 Sherrier Pl., NW

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are tennis courts in Ward 3, there are fields in Ward 3, there is no pool in Ward 3. The NIMBYs need to step off and accept that it's totally logical to replace either of these amenities with a pool in Ward 3. Some people will fight anything!

Where are the other public tennis courts? Just out of curiosity? Or are you suggesting that if it's only possible to have 2 of the 3 things, one of the 2 should be a pool?

Anonymous wrote:There are tennis courts in Ward 3, there are fields in Ward 3, there is no pool in Ward 3. The NIMBYs need to step off and accept that it's totally logical to replace either of these amenities with a pool in Ward 3. Some people will fight anything!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when."

That works both ways. A big green space provides amenities to a very broad population, not just the people who live in the immediate neighborhood. I suspect a pool would be most heavily used by the people within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that a pool is a better use than a park. This debate continues to be defined by the allegedly narrow concerns of a few neighbors. But there are broader issues that reflect the environmental and historic values of a broader population. The District is undergoing a massive change with a scaling up buildings which are getting taller. Mary Cheh has a vision of a more dense city Ward 3 and she is getting it. But that increased density is all the more reason to preserve the very few wide open green spaces that exist and not covering them with hard scape.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Did you learn this heckneyed phrase in law school debate club.

Of course, DC has made some progress in increasing the tree canopy in the last 10 years. But these restorative efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the tree canopy that was lost in the prior 30 years. Older canopy trees provide the most value in shade, energy reduction and Co2 mitigation. They are vulnerable enough to storms and impact from nearby construction without sacrificing more of them for a discretionary project.

Anonymous wrote:Why is a tennis court less important than a pool?

Anonymous wrote:I just read today's Northwest Current. I hadn't heard about this before, but there is a Friends of Hearst Pool group:

http://friendsofhearstpool.org/

The pictures are worth 1,000 words in terms of the doom around traffic and parking, and tennis court usage.

If you support the pool, sign their petition and join the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is clear that some will oppose a pool regardless of where it is sited, what it's use might be during non-summer months or whatever. They will continue to fight and make excuses regardless, because they feel the big green space across from their house is theirs and only they can dictate who uses it, how, and when."

That works both ways. A big green space provides amenities to a very broad population, not just the people who live in the immediate neighborhood. I suspect a pool would be most heavily used by the people within walking distance. But that doesn't mean that a pool is a better use than a park. This debate continues to be defined by the allegedly narrow concerns of a few neighbors. But there are broader issues that reflect the environmental and historic values of a broader population. The District is undergoing a massive change with a scaling up buildings which are getting taller. Mary Cheh has a vision of a more dense city Ward 3 and she is getting it. But that increased density is all the more reason to preserve the very few wide open green spaces that exist and not covering them with hard scape.

Very true. DC has lost a lot of green space and tree canopy in recent years. It's important that green public assets be maintained as much as possible, not paved over. Mature trees are the city's green lungs. They filter automotive pollutants and cool the air to some extent, which is all the more important as density and temperatures rise.

Not true! DC's tree canopy is on an upward trajectory. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts:

i -Tree Studies

In 2004 and 2009, Casey Trees statistically sampled a portion of the District’s trees to perform a citywide assessment of the District’s tree canopy25. By examining approximately 200 plots on private and federal lands, Casey Trees estimated the number, species composition, size constitution, and economic and environmental value of the District’s trees. Highlights of this study’s findings
include the following:

• The number of trees in the city has increased from 1.9 to 2.6 million;
• Small trees (under 6 inches in diameter) have increased from 56.3 to 62.6%;

http://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/page_content/attachments/Draft_Urban_Tree_Canopy_Plan_Final.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the UDC pool is not a DPR facility that is open for family use the way DPR facilities are used. But nice deflection.

That's the indoor UDC pool. But DPR would have the opportunity to get a parcel transfrred to it (or at least have a longterm operating arrangement, like with the Wilson pool). It's all within the DC government, which is a real bureaucracy to be sure, but the mayor can make inter-agency transfers and co-location agreements happen. UDC is the site for the Murch swing space, and once the school vacates the swing site, it would be a good location for a permanent outdoor pool (which should also be available to UDC as it is for DC residents generally). UDC is also within the same general area as the Hearst park site. Seems like a win-win.

The State Department controls that land. Which is why UDC's attempts to build dorms there went nowhere because the embassies objected. Have to think they would do the same about a pool. Nice try though.

The embassies didn't object to a pool. And you oversimplify the role of the State Department, which also owned the land under Intelsat and then consented to a sale to a private development group.

Meant to say that the embassies didn't object (or weren't listened to) with respect to Murch school, which involves fixtures constructed and used for at least 10 months out of the year. An in-ground pool is less obtrusive and is used at most 3 months out of the year.

Yes, but the Murch trailers are temporary. A pool would be permanent. The State Department needs that land for future embassies as is evidenced by construction of the new Moroccan embassy. Other countries are eyeing sites for future construction. 20 years from now all that land will be built up and the embassy staff will be enjoying the new pool in Hearst Park.

NP: The objection to the UDC dorm was based on height for security reasons. They will not allow anything to be built at that location that is higher than a single story (which is why they were fine with temporary Murch trailers (but would not allow DGS to use double decker trailers). In any case, once the Murch trailers are gone, that space will become a soccer field for the UDC Firebirds, also to be used by several private schools (Burke, Maret) and Stoddert soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The district has proposed 2 acres for the pool. An architect at last weekend's planning session said he could do it one acre. Either way, it destroys the field.

Or it could take a tennis court, or the backboard area, or the basketball court, or the parking area. Really, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and are happy to walk around with a cloud of rain on you at all times.

Anonymous wrote:The district has proposed 2 acres for the pool. An architect at last weekend's planning session said he could do it one acre. Either way, it destroys the field.