As a Hearst parent from Ward 4 I'm not sure how I feel about the pool plan. We go to Upshur, Wilson or drive out to waterslide type pools right now (like Great Waves or MLK Park in Silver Spring, which has a lazy river.) Or hike a creek or go to the bay. I prefer outdoor pools and it would be crazy nice to be able to hit the pool with the kids but they also play soccer and the field is good the way it is.
The historic cottage is NOT NICE INSIDE and it gets 60 kids every school day for aftercare. It's a shame they can't modernize that space with a thoughtfull addition.

Based on this discussion, I walked Hearst Park today. The park is tight if DPR includes all they say they want to include. However, the best place for a pool would seem to be just south of the park shelter, and northeast of the field. This would also provide convenient access from the Hearst School parking lot and more easy enable handicapped access.

If I had to guess, either the swimming pool or the dog park will be cut for reasons of space and budget. I'd like to think it would be the dog park that is eliminated, but that's cheaper to build and "doggers" can be pretty vocal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

The school is DCPS land, the park is DPR land. If you look at the DC Atlas it's actually two separate lots.

See prior post.

NP here. I saw prior post. City land switcheroos are not the easy maneuver you think it is.

Have you all been inside the school? The design is fantastic with lots of light. They even won a grant for a decorative mobile that reflects the light. It's worth checking out.

Anonymous wrote:The cottage itself is part of a landmark and the new construction at the school itself went through design review.

It must have been the same "design" review experts who approved Cathedral Commons.

The cottage itself is part of a landmark and the new construction at the school itself went through design review.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

Preservation wouldn't preclude a nearby construction. It has precluded significant alterations to the house, but a nearby pool wouldn't be an issue.

This was a huge issue for the construction of the school. I wouldn't be so sanguine about building something that would abut the cottage.

If this was such an issue, how did the school wind up with an addition that is so generic looking and bears no relation to the original school (or to the cottage)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

Preservation wouldn't preclude a nearby construction. It has precluded significant alterations to the house, but a nearby pool wouldn't be an issue.

This was a huge issue for the construction of the school. I wouldn't be so sanguine about building something that would abut the cottage.

If this was such an issue, how did the school wind up with an addition that is so generic looking and bears no relationship to the original school (or to the cottage)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

Preservation wouldn't preclude a nearby construction. It has precluded significant alterations to the house, but a nearby pool wouldn't be an issue.

This was a huge issue for the construction of the school. I wouldn't be so sanguine about building something that would abut the cottage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

Preservation wouldn't preclude a nearby construction. It has precluded significant alterations to the house, but a nearby pool wouldn't be an issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

The school is DCPS land, the park is DPR land. If you look at the DC Atlas it's actually two separate lots.

See prior post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

The school is DCPS land, the park is DPR land. If you look at the DC Atlas it's actually two separate lots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.

Whether the land is owned by DCPS or DPR is a bureaucratic detail. A conveyance or swap could be taken care of legislatively, if not administratively. Recall, how DCPS was prepared to convey part of the Janney School property to a connected private developer? Fortunately, that didn't happen and anything at Hearst Park would be for a public purpose, not the private gain of a favored mayoral crony. As for historic preservation, the HPO staff has become (too) flexible recently, and so long as the cottage wasn't touched, it's unlikely to be an issue. Of course, none of these alternatives would need to be considered if DPR weren't trying to cram so much into the Hearst site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there is going to be an amphitheater where the portables are now.

Lots of stuff will need to be rethought, with puts and takes, if DPR is to squeeze all of the "proposed" program into the Hearst site.

And it is not DPR land. It is DCPS land. And it is likely that building a permanent structure so close to the historic DPR cottage would be a no go for historic preservation.