Cisco is marketing headsets to help workers “stay focused in noisy environments.” Businesses used to offer something to help their employees focus on work in the past, it was called an office.
But offices are expensive, the bean counters moan. Well, productivity takes a hit in noisy workspaces, as does trying to mitigate the noise with gadgets and quiet rooms. Just the earphone and headphone market alone was worth $11.68 billion in 2015 and the “number is expected to reach $18.2 billion by 2023.”
Which is why Cisco, smelling money, is manufacturing headsets to help workers “stay focused in noisy environments,” marketing them as “ideal for people who work side by side in contact centers and open spaces.” Says TechTarget, “[t]he move may be evidence that vendors are looking to capitalize on open-office plans.”
So take a look at the latest thing du jour designed to cure the open plan noise problem, but never stop dreaming of the return to sanity and sensibility.
that the audience is afraid of making noise. Reports have popped up saying the movie is so quiet that its audience is “too scared to eat their popcorn” because of the deafening silence. Not a bad thing in our book.
This Denver Post article correctly makes the point that patrons don’t want a too noisy restaurant but they don’t want a too quiet one, either.
There is a fine balance between ambient noise levels that allow one to converse with your dining companions, but are loud or complex enough to mask conversations from nearby tables.
And the quality of the noise–is it sharp, tinkling, reverberating?–also makes a difference in the restaurant experience.
The article also notes that it’s hard to design the right sound environment into the restaurant and that adjustments are often needed after a restaurant opens.
DISCLOSURE: The article mentions the SoundPrint app for measuring restaurant noise. I serve as the Medical Advisor to SoundPrint.
Dr. Daniel Fink is a leading noise activist based in the Los Angeles area. He serves on the board of the American Tinnitus Association, is the interim chair of Quiet Communities’s Health Advisory Council, and is the founding chair of The Quiet Coalition, an organization of science, health, and legal professionals concerned about the impacts of noise on health, environment, learning, productivity, and quality of life in America.
by Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D., Board of Directors, GrowNYC, and Co-founder, The Quiet Coalition
Noise is not simply an annoyance: noise is hazardous to mental and physical health and well-being. The research literature supporting this statement is plentiful. Recognizing that the research linking noise to poor health was growing, New York City decided to update its noise code ten years ago. While many citizens supported this effort, there was a great deal of opposition from the nightlife community who feared more stringent limits on sound levels would impede the business of bars, music venues, dance clubs, cafes, and late-night restaurants. Then Mayor Michael Bloomberg, believing that an updated noise code was essential for the health of New Yorkers, asked that the supporters and opponents of the noise code sit down and work together to bring about a code that would work for all its citizens. They did and the City’s updated noise code was passed.
In January 2018, the Comptroller of the State of New York decided to assess the strength of the noise code in responding to the many noise complaints received by 311, the New York City Complaint Center. The DiNapoli report found that between 2010 and 2015, “New Yorkers made 1.6 million complaints via 311.” Nightlife noise complaints were identified as music, party or people noise coming from a commercial establishment. Between 2010 and 2015, the report noted there were 154,587 such complaints with concentrations in the Lower East Side and Chinatown. The New York City Police Department confirmed about 1/3 of these complaints and most were resolved by actions taken to “fix the condition.”
A separate survey of residents was also conducted, and respondents offered suggestions as to how to lower the number of nightlife complaints, e.g. better management of people socializing in front of the establishment, enforcement of volume levels of music.
It is interesting that shortly after this DiNapoli report was released, we learn that New York has decided to appoint for the first time a Nightlife Mayor to “ …promote the industry and soothe the strained relations between the city’s night spots and the neighborhoods that complain about their merriment.” New Yorker Ariel Palitz, the former owner of Sutra, a club that she managed for ten years until it closed several years ago, was named Nightlife Mayor.
Following the announcement of Ms. Palitz as Nightlife Mayor, the NY Post ran an article that informed readers that Ms. Palitz’ club, Sutra, topped the list of “loudest gin joints for seven years running according to an interview she gave to a Lower East Side blog six years ago.” Ms. Palitz blamed the noise complaints on one relentless caller to 311.
According to the DiNapoli report, however, there are many New York City residents who are disturbed by the sounds that emanate from nearby clubs, bars, and music venues. In the New York Times article, Ms. Palitz states that she wants to listen to the residents who complain about the noise. She then goes on to say that she believes both sides feel that things are unfair but so far there have been “no practical solutions to address them.”
Accepting Ms. Palitz’ desire to resolve the disputes between the two sides, residents and owners of nightlife establishments, I would hope that the Advisory Committee that has already been named to assist her has members who are knowledgeable about the laws pertaining to noise control, as well as the impacts of noise on health and well-being. There should be someone on this committee that can assess the needs of both the owners and residents with appropriate surveys. I would also suggest that the committee members and Ms. Palitz read the most recent DiNapoli report on noise as well as his earlier report on nightlife noise reports.
For the past thirty years as a member of the Board of GrowNYC where I oversee its anti-noise activities, many New Yorkers have called on me to assist with their noise complaints, including residents who have been impacted by noise from nearby nightlife establishments. In addition, I have worked with community groups in New York City and elsewhere on noise issues and write extensively on the health impacts of noise pollution. I offer my long-term experience to Ms. Palitz as she moves forward to promote the nightlife industry in New York City while maintaining the requisite quiet for their nearby neighbors.
by Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D., Board of Directors, GrowNYC, and Co-founder, The Quiet Coalition
For thirty years, I have served on the Board of Directors of GrowNYC, largely overseeing its noise activities. In this capacity I worked with our staff on preparing information for our website that informs readers on how to protect themselves from noise and also to respect their neighbors’ rights to a quieter environment in their homes.
Readers who are having noise problems can read my post on how to deal with noisy neighbors or they may contact me through GrowNYC. I hope our advice has influenced readers to be respectful of neighbors’ right to quiet. But, sadly, the people I hear from are those who have neighbors who do not realize or care about imposing their sounds on their neighbors.
In his report on noise in New York City neighborhoods, Thomas P. DiNapoli noted the large number of noise complaints handled by the city’s 311 Customer Service Center as well as the results of a survey his office launched to gain greater insight into the types of noise complaints received by 311. Residential complaints, which were high on the list, included “…banging or pounding of music, party or people noise coming from a home.”
Although the Police Department can respond to some of the neighbor to neighbor complaints, e.g. very loud, disruptive parties, many of these neighbor complaints have to be resolved by landlords and managing agents. In New York State, the lease that tenants sign entitle them to a “warranty of habitability,” and under this clause they have the right to requisite quiet. Unfortunately, it has been the experience of many tenants that noise complaints are not taken seriously by their landlords and managing agents. I know this because many people with neighbor noise complaints call me at GrowNYC and I, in turn, where permissible, contact their landlords or managing agents.
While I have had much success in resolving neighbor to neighbor complaints, in those cases where I have not succeeded residents had to go to tenant/landlord court. I remember one case where neighbors were complaining about children running across uncovered floors late at night. The judge took the noise complaint seriously and told the mother that the children should have been asleep late at night and admonished her for being a “bad” mother. He also sided with the complainant and ordered the managing agent to enforce the right of this tenant to “reasonable quiet.”
I have some experience with residents in private homes in New York City and elsewhere having no other option but to go to court. But I don’t recall anyone receiving the high award for damages noted in this British case, where the complainant was awarded over ￡100,000 (approx. $138,000) in compensatory damages. I find the award of $138,000 dollars striking. Particularly since the judge also ordered the company that owned the offending flat to carry out work on the floors that would reduce the noise.
In the apartment noise cases I have been involved with, judges have asked landlords to make sure that tenants have proper carpeting on the floors which is often stipulated in leases. In one case, the judge had asked the resident who created the noise to put back the padding to the radiator she had removed when she remodeled the apartment since the removal of the padding allowed noise to enter the apartment below.
I wish tenants, landlords, managing agents, and judges involved in neighbor noise cases would read the article on the large financial payout for inflicting noise on a neighbor. It might make them realize that: (1) noise is indeed hazardous to well-being, and (2) action must be taken to abate the noise or there may be a financial price to pay.
By David M. Sykes, Vice Chair, The Quiet Coalition
It seems obvious we need a better definition of noise than the one we’ve got, doesn’t it? We all think we know what “noise” is, but the technical and legal people who develop policies and regulations need to have a solid, authoritative, operational definition and history doesn’t provide them with one.
But unfortunately it also suggests that noise is subjective and not measurable—which is completely wrong. What does “unwanted” mean? Unwanted by whom? And the absence of a working, technical definition has helped opponents of noise-control regulations, who routinely say that noise is subjective and merely annoyance. The definition tacitly gives them permission to utter dismissive bromides like “one person’s noise is another person’s music.”
People have been fighting the noise issue for 40 years, but the tide began to turn in 2011 when the World Health Organization published the report, “Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise (pdf).” It took awhile before the implications of that work were recognized here in the U.S., but within a few years U.S. policy makers began to realize that noise really is much, much more than annoyance, it’s actually a legitimate public health problem that affects hundreds of millions of people. In other words, they had to step back and recognize where this country’s policy pronouncements had been on this subject 50 years earlier—when, in 1968-69 the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Speech and Hearing Association organized the first global meeting on noise as a public health problem at which Surgeon General William H. Stewart was the keynote speaker.
So here we are in the 50th anniversary year: should we celebrate by proposing a new, operational definition of ‘noise” in objective terms that medical and public health professionals can work with and that lends itself to effective and enforceable public policy? Perhaps such a definition already exists? If so, where? TQC co-founder Arline Bronzaft, who’s been fighting the noise battle far longer than most of us, suggests this similarly elegant phrase: noise = “harmful sound” (instead of “unwanted sound”).
This could be backed up with a longer operational definition, such as:
Noise = harmful sound. Noise is radiant energy in the form of vibrations or pressure waves transmitted through a medium such as air or water that can be both directly and indirectly harmful and dangerous as well as disruptive or disturbing to humans and other organisms and to structures. For example acoustic waves may be used to shatter kidney stones or to break glass. ‘Harmful sounds’ may be perceptible or imperceptible depending on their frequency and amplitude. Noise is objectively measured with hand-held instruments designed to international standards using either the A-weighting method (preferred in the USA) or the ITU-R 468 method (preferred in the EU, UK and elsewhere). The World Health Organization, the European Union, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publish specific levels of ‘noise’ that are harmful to human beings.
What do you think?
In addition to serving as vice chair of the The Quiet Coalition, David Sykes chairs several professional organizations in acoustical science: The Acoustics Research Council, American National Standards Institute Committee S12, Workgroup 44, The Rothschild Foundation Task Force on Acoustics, and the FGI Acoustics Working Group—a partner of the American Hospital Association. He is the lead author of “Sound & Vibration 2.0 (2012, Springer-Verlag), a contributor to the National Academy of Engineering report “Technology for a Quieter America,” and to the US-GSA guidance “Sound Matters”, and co-founded the Laboratory for Advanced Research in Acoustics (LARA) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He recently retired from the board of directors of the American Tinnitus Association. A graduate of the University of California/Berkeley with graduate degrees from Cornell University, he is a frequent organizer of and speaker at professional conferences in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Apparently 30,000 loud, pooping crows are annoying Trenton residents who are tired of the crows waking them up and pooping everywhere. So what is the city going to do to get them to leave? According to NBC New York, the city is turning to “high tech” to get rid of them. Specifically, the city deploying “pyrotechnics, lasers, spotlights, amplified recordings of crow distress calls and crow effigies” to convince their unwanted guests to leave. Desperate times call for desperate measures.