Comments on: Field Behind Harriet Tubman Getting Re-Sodded

By: a player who had played on tubman field for a long time

a player who had played on tubman field for a long time — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:28:55 +0000

look people WE PLAY ON THAT FIELD WAS AREADY F#$% UP BECUZ THE KIDZ IN TUBMAN BE PULLING OUT THE GRASS CUZ THERE FOOT BE GETTIN TANGLE WITH HE FAKE GRASS NET UNDER SO THEY PULL IT OUT AND THROW IT AWAY

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:53:37 +0000

I was walking by the Harriett Tubman field today and noticed the work and was curious to know what was happening there. Many thanks to the Prince of Petworth for reporting on this issue and to all the posters who have chimed in with additional info and perspectives. After reading the posts I have a few comments:

As a longtime Columbia Heights resident and a soccer player who has played on grass and turf fields of varying quality in DC, MD, and VA for the past ten years, I am highly appreciative of DCPS for turfing the field at Harriett Tubman and creating a quality playing surface in this part of the neighborhood. Would I rather play on a nice grass field, like the professionally maintained ones at the Maryland SoccerPlex in Germantown, or at Trinity College in Northeast where visiting foreign national teams train before playing the US? Of course. Turf can get really hot, as one poster noted, and I’m not surprised to hear that it’s a little harder on the body. But the benefits of turf are too many to be ignored – less maintenance costs, you can play in the rain, it can be used more often – and turf quality has increased to the point where it’s misinformed to call it “trashy” or “cheap.”

And just to correct the record … it was soccer players from the District Sports coed soccer league that re-sodded the Harriett Tubman field a few years ago. I was part of that effort. It was sad to see the field degenerate into a dustbowl after just a few months. Turfing the field is a wise investment of time and money.

By: steveg202

steveg202 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:48:57 +0000

As mentioned, the private and expensive Field School ($30K/yr for 7th-12th grades) did their entire field in fake turf recently. I see no conspiracy here. The school field is used constantly and would require lots of regular maintenance. New grass takes a year of daily watering to be maintained or you lose your entire investment. That is just not a reality at this school or likely others.

By: Neener

Neener — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:21:22 +0000

Georgetown has astroturf playgrounds. Do people even visit Georgetown?

By: Neener

Neener — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:18:44 +0000

Larchie, There is a monstrously huge difference between how something is maintained in Silver Spring or Arlington and how it’s maintained in DC by DC employees. I couldn’t care less about the difference in injuries between the two kinds of fields if astroturf is the only functioning choice- do you get my meaning?

If someone can run a comparison between school fields and greenspaces in DC, Baltimore, Newark or Atlanta (or possibly Cleveland or Detroit) then I’ll accept those comparisons. If someone wants to talk about any other US city or suburb then the comparisons are simply inaccurate.

I have talked to NYC City employees who have been incredible with weird local ideas of how they want their community to be. Has anyone ever once spoken to ANY DC employee including a DCPS teacher or principal who had ideas for the community that they felt were intelligent or higher? I have not. In every case the teachers had sub-articulate undereducated ideas and DC employees who weren’t teachers were just plain stupid.

Here is a photo which spells out DC public employees to me very clearly even though the guy himself is a Fed:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/federal.buildings.security/index.html

By: Neener

Neener — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:11:23 +0000

WJordan, you’re a known, exposed liar who is lying here. Grow up or get out.

By: EPF

EPF — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:57:39 +0000

WJordan – Thanks for the info.

By: New2CH

New2CH — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:45:14 +0000

I am not sure who “we” is WJordan. All I do know is that “I”, along with a large number of other volunteers, spent a Saturday resodding that field, only to see it quickly destroyed because it was never watered by the city, so far as I can tell. I am not sure if ANYTHING can save a field from such heavy soccer use (probably not), but certainly, the lack of any maintenance from the school or city didn’t help matters …

By: W Jordan

W Jordan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:25:30 +0000

The story of that field was much more complex than kickball players good, soccer players bad, there was little difference in the two groups. In fact that field was about this community failing its children in a haste to fulfill our own individual interests. Each and every segment. No heroes. Basically we are going to turf because “we” don’t want to invest the care that grass takes.

By: alaaro

alaaro — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:05:01 +0000

The grass was replaced by the kickball teams that used the field back in 2006 – then the soccer players promptly destroyed it. Natural will just be trashed all over again if the fields are open to soccer games.