Anonymous wrote:DCPS should just completely junk these plans.

Unless children are in person in standard classroom settings the crowding problem may take care of itself as people opt to move to the suburbs, go to charters, or for those who can afford it, go private.

Why would you buy a building without a plan?

The neighborhood is transit inaccessible because it wants to be "exclusive." GDS realized that it was a poor property for this and other reasons. That is why they sold.

Just because something is available to purchase doesn't mean you should buy it. What incredibly poor planning.

Now there is a site that few want to send their children to -- the justification is some parents told them to buy. Who are these parents? What was the strategy?

DCPS can be so frustrating and disappointing all at once.

I love to rag on DCPS and their botching of the re-opening as much as the next DCUMer, but come on . . . Yes, the DL fiasco did public education in this city no favors, but odds are that schools in Ward 3 will be as overcrowded in a couple of years as they have ever been. And if they don't take opportunities to acquire assets and schools get overcrowded as a result, then it will be folks like you accusing them to plan properly (especially given that demographic projections show that the problem is only going to get worse). I don't doubt that they have a plan of what to use the GDS site for, but are just going through a consultation charade because announcing decisions without a consultation charade isn't kosher. The GDS site isn't perfect, but what site is? Hardy on Wisconsin with a single under-sized playing field? Lord & Taylor on the very edge of the space with no green space whatsoever? The neighborhood is in a transit rut but one that is easily fixable. The old Palisades Trolley Trail runs right by the site, for goodness sake. Making the D5 a regular service is a stroke of the pen. Just because are as they are doesn't mean they must stay that way forever.

Anonymous wrote:Where the hell is Sana'a?

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=sana%27a

Where the hell is Sana'a?

Anonymous wrote:DCPS should just completely junk these plans.

Unless children are in person in standard classroom settings the crowding problem may take care of itself as people opt to move to the suburbs, go to charters, or for those who can afford it, go private.

Why would you buy a building without a plan?

The neighborhood is transit inaccessible because it wants to be "exclusive." GDS realized that it was a poor property for this and other reasons. That is why they sold.

Just because something is available to purchase doesn't mean you should buy it. What incredibly poor planning.

Now there is a site that few want to send their children to -- the justification is some parents told them to buy. Who are these parents? What was the strategy?

DCPS can be so frustrating and disappointing all at once.

That was one of many reasons why GDS sold, but not the only one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GDS site does not seem large enough for a HS, but could see a MS on that campus. Would this replace Hardy Middle School or supplement it? If it were a HS, the enrollment would be between a quarter and a third of Wilson's population.

Curiously, the survey is running over 50% for a new high school on the site. I don't get the thinking behind this. Most sensible option is to make GDS the new Hardy MS and then put a new HS on Wisconsin. Or maybe put a new MS on GDS, keep Hardy on Wisconsin with new boundaries to relieve Deal, and then use this Lord & Taylor site the NIMBYs love so much for a new HS. Lord knows that both a new HS AND MS are needed WOTP to relieve overcrowding at Wilson and Deal.

Right now Hardy is 46% in-boundary. It could also hold a few hundred more kids if needed. If Deal crowding could be solved by sending kids to Hardy, it would have been solved already. Adding more middle school capacity in the southern half of the ward does nothing for Deal, but it creates a whole lot more middle school seats that have the right to attend Wilson. The only way to solve for Deal is going to be a new middle school somewhere within the current Deal boundaries, probably in the northern part of Ward 3.

A new high school that Hardy feeds helps crowding at Wilson, although it doesn't completely solve the problem. The only question I see is whether you put the new high school at MacArthur, or move Hardy to MacArthur and put the new HS at the current Hardy location on Wisconsin. I prefer the second just because MacArthur "feels" more like a middle school location and Wisconsin "feels" more like a HS location to me. But that's my subjective opinion.

PP, I get the "feel" but it also just makes more sense. HS kids can take the multiple bus lines on Wisconsin. Some may take the red/blue/orange lines to closest stop then change to bus. The GDS MacArthur campus can accommodate 575 students, perhaps more if DCPS can negotiate an increase in enrollment numbers for that site. That number is more than the current Hardy level and could siphon off of the Deal enrollment.

The Lord and Taylor site makes a LOT of sense for another high school, especially because it is metro-accessible. And maybe it can be built in a way that a MS can also fit on the land.

GL DC parents! DCPS, do this!

So you have MacArthur as a MS, a new HS at the Hardy site on Wisconsin, and another new HS at the Lord & Taylor site?

No. I would either go with MacArthur MS/Hardy HS or a new HS/MS on L+T site.

DCPS should just completely junk these plans.

Unless children are in person in standard classroom settings the crowding problem may take care of itself as people opt to move to the suburbs, go to charters, or for those who can afford it, go private.

Why would you buy a building without a plan?

The neighborhood is transit inaccessible because it wants to be "exclusive." GDS realized that it was a poor property for this and other reasons. That is why they sold.

Just because something is available to purchase doesn't mean you should buy it. What incredibly poor planning.

Now there is a site that few want to send their children to -- the justification is some parents told them to buy. Who are these parents? What was the strategy?

DCPS can be so frustrating and disappointing all at once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GDS site does not seem large enough for a HS, but could see a MS on that campus. Would this replace Hardy Middle School or supplement it? If it were a HS, the enrollment would be between a quarter and a third of Wilson's population.

Curiously, the survey is running over 50% for a new high school on the site. I don't get the thinking behind this. Most sensible option is to make GDS the new Hardy MS and then put a new HS on Wisconsin. Or maybe put a new MS on GDS, keep Hardy on Wisconsin with new boundaries to relieve Deal, and then use this Lord & Taylor site the NIMBYs love so much for a new HS. Lord knows that both a new HS AND MS are needed WOTP to relieve overcrowding at Wilson and Deal.

Right now Hardy is 46% in-boundary. It could also hold a few hundred more kids if needed. If Deal crowding could be solved by sending kids to Hardy, it would have been solved already. Adding more middle school capacity in the southern half of the ward does nothing for Deal, but it creates a whole lot more middle school seats that have the right to attend Wilson. The only way to solve for Deal is going to be a new middle school somewhere within the current Deal boundaries, probably in the northern part of Ward 3.

A new high school that Hardy feeds helps crowding at Wilson, although it doesn't completely solve the problem. The only question I see is whether you put the new high school at MacArthur, or move Hardy to MacArthur and put the new HS at the current Hardy location on Wisconsin. I prefer the second just because MacArthur "feels" more like a middle school location and Wisconsin "feels" more like a HS location to me. But that's my subjective opinion.

PP, I get the "feel" but it also just makes more sense. HS kids can take the multiple bus lines on Wisconsin. Some may take the red/blue/orange lines to closest stop then change to bus. The GDS MacArthur campus can accommodate 575 students, perhaps more if DCPS can negotiate an increase in enrollment numbers for that site. That number is more than the current Hardy level and could siphon off of the Deal enrollment.

The Lord and Taylor site makes a LOT of sense for another high school, especially because it is metro-accessible. And maybe it can be built in a way that a MS can also fit on the land.

GL DC parents! DCPS, do this!

So you have MacArthur as a MS, a new HS at the Hardy site on Wisconsin, and another new HS at the Lord & Taylor site?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GDS site does not seem large enough for a HS, but could see a MS on that campus. Would this replace Hardy Middle School or supplement it? If it were a HS, the enrollment would be between a quarter and a third of Wilson's population.

Curiously, the survey is running over 50% for a new high school on the site. I don't get the thinking behind this. Most sensible option is to make GDS the new Hardy MS and then put a new HS on Wisconsin. Or maybe put a new MS on GDS, keep Hardy on Wisconsin with new boundaries to relieve Deal, and then use this Lord & Taylor site the NIMBYs love so much for a new HS. Lord knows that both a new HS AND MS are needed WOTP to relieve overcrowding at Wilson and Deal.

Right now Hardy is 46% in-boundary. It could also hold a few hundred more kids if needed. If Deal crowding could be solved by sending kids to Hardy, it would have been solved already. Adding more middle school capacity in the southern half of the ward does nothing for Deal, but it creates a whole lot more middle school seats that have the right to attend Wilson. The only way to solve for Deal is going to be a new middle school somewhere within the current Deal boundaries, probably in the northern part of Ward 3.

A new high school that Hardy feeds helps crowding at Wilson, although it doesn't completely solve the problem. The only question I see is whether you put the new high school at MacArthur, or move Hardy to MacArthur and put the new HS at the current Hardy location on Wisconsin. I prefer the second just because MacArthur "feels" more like a middle school location and Wisconsin "feels" more like a HS location to me. But that's my subjective opinion.

PP, I get the "feel" but it also just makes more sense. HS kids can take the multiple bus lines on Wisconsin. Some may take the red/blue/orange lines to closest stop then change to bus. The GDS MacArthur campus can accommodate 575 students, perhaps more if DCPS can negotiate an increase in enrollment numbers for that site. That number is more than the current Hardy level and could siphon off of the Deal enrollment.

The Lord and Taylor site makes a LOT of sense for another high school, especially because it is metro-accessible. And maybe it can be built in a way that a MS can also fit on the land.

GL DC parents! DCPS, do this!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so stupid to put another public school in a remote part of DC with minimal/no transit access. They should cancel this purchase.

“Remote part of DC”. That’s an interesting turn of phrase, like MacArthur Blvd constitutes some strange wilderness.

It is not some "strange wilderness," but if you take public transit, it is not easy to reach unless you are coming directly from downtown DC. And the buses do not run frequently.

There are a few options to fix that. These run the gamut from putting the D5 (which runs down M and then MacArthur) on a full day schedule to converting the right-of-way of the former Palisades Trolley Trail into a dedicated bus-way and maybe even eventually a new streetcar line. If the mayor really wants to densify the Palisades, the latter idea might not be so crazy.

Agree, but are any of these proposals under active consideration?

All we have heard from DCPS is that they themselves will not offer transportation and that they will work with WMATA, DDOT, etc. after decisions have been made about the uses of the two sites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so stupid to put another public school in a remote part of DC with minimal/no transit access. They should cancel this purchase.

“Remote part of DC”. That’s an interesting turn of phrase, like MacArthur Blvd constitutes some strange wilderness.

It is not some "strange wilderness," but if you take public transit, it is not easy to reach unless you are coming directly from downtown DC. And the buses do not run frequently.

There are a few options to fix that. These run the gamut from putting the D5 (which runs down M and then MacArthur) on a full day schedule to converting the right-of-way of the former Palisades Trolley Trail into a dedicated bus-way and maybe even eventually a new streetcar line. If the mayor really wants to densify the Palisades, the latter idea might not be so crazy.

Agree, but are any of these proposals under active consideration?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out their online petition here:
http://chng.it/tDZBb9L9Ly

Maybe the city should instead be considering building a mental health facility on Hardy Park to serve the apparently large numbers of people in the neighborhood who seem detached from reality, exhibit characteristics consistent with narcissistic personality disorder, and/or tend towards unhealthy levels of hysteria.

THIS is the kind of commentary I come to DCUM for!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone posting here actually live in the neighborhood?

Well, there's at least two of us.

I live in the neighborhood, and I categorically reject the position -- which undergirds most of their arguments -- that people who live nearby should have a special voice. Sure, you might have a special interest -- as does anyone with school-age children -- but the way that the democratic process works is that your vote counts the same as everyone else's.

That's one of those arguments that sounds real good to the people making it, and is utterly unpersuasive to anyone else.

In all seriousness, this has nothing to do with a park and everything to do with them not wanting public school children around their neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out their online petition here:
http://chng.it/tDZBb9L9Ly

Maybe the city should instead be considering building a mental health facility on Hardy Park to serve the apparently large numbers of people in the neighborhood who seem detached from reality, exhibit characteristics consistent with narcissistic personality disorder, and/or tend towards unhealthy levels of hysteria.

Current thinking is that can be treated on an outpatient basis with appropriate medication and therapy.

The high incidence of the aforementioned psychological ailments in such a small geographical area is certainly curious and worthy of further study. I hate to venture guesses, but maybe it has to do with there being accommodated in some of the silliest-looking abodes this side of Sana'a.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone posting here actually live in the neighborhood?

Well, there's at least two of us.

I live in the neighborhood, and I categorically reject the position -- which undergirds most of their arguments -- that people who live nearby should have a special voice. Sure, you might have a special interest -- as does anyone with school-age children -- but the way that the democratic process works is that your vote counts the same as everyone else's.

That's one of those arguments that sounds real good to the people making it, and is utterly unpersuasive to anyone else.