Being fond of both tennis and swimming, I have always been envious of people who have both a tennis court and a swimming pool. I know several such, and, while they never actually boast, they somehow manage to let it get around.
We have had our own tennis court for nearly 40 years. But up to this year we didn't have the pool to accompany it. Our property is only large enough to accommodate our court, our house and a small area for putting out garbage.
Acquiring adjacent property was out of the question, because we live in a rather exclusive neighborhood where prices would be prohibitive. There is a dry-cleaning establishment on our north boundary, and a bar and grill on the south. We are bounded east by a superhighway and west by railroad tracks.
So I kept discarding the idea of having a swimming pool, until—about half a year ago—I suddenly got a bright thought: Why not have a combination tennis court and swimming pool? I reasoned that our swimming court—or tennis pool—would have to be within the same area that our court occupied, viz., 120 feet by 60 feet from backstop to backstop and sidestop to sidestop.
This meant, of course, that the pool—or the court—would have to be built over—or under—the court or the pool. Definitely one or the other. First I contemplated building the pool over the court and finally rejected this for these reasons:
1) The pool would have to be emptied before it could be removed from the tennis court, and emptying the water would take too long, even using the biggest dipper in our kitchen.
2) If we emptied the water into, or onto, the dry-cleaning establishment, the bar and grill, the highway or the railroad tracks, it could cause bad feelings and possible lawsuits.
3) Our water is metered.
4) People don't want to swim first and then play tennis; they want to play tennis and then swim.
I had now arrived at the conclusion that the pool must be under the court—or that the court should be built over the pool. I can reason as closely as the next fellow.