6 ms·

Far and away the most reoccurring noise for us is airplanes landing at Bromma Airport in Stockholm, Sweden. Because half of the city is in the descent path, we

by toxik 4y ago

Far and away the most reoccurring noise for us is airplanes landing at Bromma Airport in Stockholm, Sweden. Because half of the city is in the descent path, we get low flying commercial airplanes, sometimes a dozen an hour. Incredible how it’s even remotely legal. Especially since most plebs only go to Arlanda Airport, which is an hour away by car. Politicians and businessmen use Bromma. Second loudest noise is heavy traffic, like trucks. They always seem to be speeding in low speed areas too. I only noticed because my daughter would wake up because of them.

piva00 4y ago
I live in Stockholm and I'm originally from São Paulo, Brazil. Bromma is quite annoying (even more when I lived around Sundbyberg) but is still relatively tame compared to Congonhas airport in São Paulo. Either way I can't believe that both airports are still allowed to operate, I lived under both on/off-ramps and even though your mind learns to filter out the noise there's something you can still feel under your skin every time a plane buzzes by...
- easytiger 4y ago
  > Either way I can't believe that both airports are still allowed to operate, I lived under both on/off-ramps 1. Bromma Stockholm Airport Opened 23 May 1936 2. São Paulo/Congonhas–Deputado Freitas Nobre Airport - Opened 12 April 1936 Interestingly both opened 86 years ago. When did you move to near the area of their operation? Most airports are built away from conurbations which then grow around them, in my observation
  - piva00 4y ago
    In São Paulo I lived close to Congonhas from around 2006-2015. And I lived around Bromma airport in 2017-2018. The issue with Congonhas is exactly that the city grew towards it after Brazil started to urbanise in the 50s, what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it would be a massive improvement for the city both regarding noise and land-use...
    - easytiger 4y ago
      > what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it would be a massive improvement for the city both regarding noise and land-use... The logic here: 1. Move to a property immediately near an airport 2. Notice there is aircraft noise near that airport 3. Complain about the aircraft noise 4. Demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down because the noise is a problem for you 5. Incredulity that the municipality won't shut down an airport because it annoys you It's like shooting yourself in the foot and suing the shoe manufacturer for not being bullet resistant.
      - avar 4y ago
        This is a bad argument for a few reasons: A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in. See e.g. [2] for historical Kennedy airport traffic amounts, it makes no sense to compare modern-day traffic at any airport to its current traffic and noise levels. B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health. It's a given that a rich person living near an airport can afford to noise insulation to make it a non-issue (indoors at least), but that doesn't begin to address the greater public health aspect. C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in. I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk. After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change. But it doesn't work like that, standards change over time, and in the case of air or noise pollution bottom-up change over time tends to result in improvements through laws and regulation, and hopefully better public health as a result. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-passenger-traffic-globally/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-... 2. https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html
samatman 4y ago
Chicago used to have Meigs Field right downtown, there was a small amount of local passenger service but it was mainly there so wealthy people didn't have to take the El from O'Hare or Midway (or, let's be real, sit in the back while their chauffeur deals with the Dan Ryan). Daley the Younger bulldozed it in defiance of the FAA, far and away the coolest thing that fella did.
- wl 4y ago
  Too bad the city of Chicago half-assed their redevelopment of Northerly Island. Half the island is still closed because the waves kept on destroying the paved trail along the eastern side. The artificial reefs and barrier islands the engineers said were needed to avoid this weren't constructed because of budgetary reasons.

by toxik 4y ago

piva00 4y ago

I live in Stockholm and I'm originally from São Paulo, Brazil. Bromma is quite annoying (even more when I lived around Sundbyberg) but is still relatively tame compared to Congonhas airport in São Paulo. Either way I can't believe that both airports are still allowed to operate, I lived under both on/off-ramps and even though your mind learns to filter out the noise there's something you can still feel under your skin every time a plane buzzes by...

easytiger 4y ago
> Either way I can't believe that both airports are still allowed to operate, I lived under both on/off-ramps 1. Bromma Stockholm Airport Opened 23 May 1936 2. São Paulo/Congonhas–Deputado Freitas Nobre Airport - Opened 12 April 1936 Interestingly both opened 86 years ago. When did you move to near the area of their operation? Most airports are built away from conurbations which then grow around them, in my observation
- piva00 4y ago
  In São Paulo I lived close to Congonhas from around 2006-2015. And I lived around Bromma airport in 2017-2018. The issue with Congonhas is exactly that the city grew towards it after Brazil started to urbanise in the 50s, what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it would be a massive improvement for the city both regarding noise and land-use...
  - easytiger 4y ago
    > what I cannot believe is that even after Guarulhos was expanded there was some talks about shutting down Congonhas that never materialised, even though it would be a massive improvement for the city both regarding noise and land-use... The logic here: 1. Move to a property immediately near an airport 2. Notice there is aircraft noise near that airport 3. Complain about the aircraft noise 4. Demand the 80+ year old airport be shut down because the noise is a problem for you 5. Incredulity that the municipality won't shut down an airport because it annoys you It's like shooting yourself in the foot and suing the shoe manufacturer for not being bullet resistant.
    - avar 4y ago
      This is a bad argument for a few reasons: A. Global airline traffic has approximately tripled in the last couple of decades[1], so even if you're arguing that someone should have known when they moved there it's not the same amount of noise as when they moved in. See e.g. [2] for historical Kennedy airport traffic amounts, it makes no sense to compare modern-day traffic at any airport to its current traffic and noise levels. B. It's basically a "let them eat cake" argument. Property prices in high-noise areas are lower, but poor people also deserve to have their health. It's a given that a rich person living near an airport can afford to noise insulation to make it a non-issue (indoors at least), but that doesn't begin to address the greater public health aspect. C. You're assuming that people are capable of making perfectly informed decisions before they move or buy property. You might know that the house is next to the train tracks, but you won't really know what affect waking up at 4am to screeching train noise will have on you until you settle in. I live in a house constructed before WWI in a major European city. If we follow your reasoning it would be perfectly OK to heat all those houses with indoor stoves spewing unfiltered particulates into the air, with the resulting air pollution and fire risk. After all if we wind back the clock that's what people who bought those houses initially expected, and if the default answer to how we could improve our collective living conditions was "you should have known about this when you bought it!" nothing would ever change. But it doesn't work like that, standards change over time, and in the case of air or noise pollution bottom-up change over time tends to result in improvements through laws and regulation, and hopefully better public health as a result. 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-passenger-traffic-globally/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/564717/airline-industry-... 2. https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-traffic-booms.html

samatman 4y ago

Chicago used to have Meigs Field right downtown, there was a small amount of local passenger service but it was mainly there so wealthy people didn't have to take the El from O'Hare or Midway (or, let's be real, sit in the back while their chauffeur deals with the Dan Ryan). Daley the Younger bulldozed it in defiance of the FAA, far and away the coolest thing that fella did.

wl 4y ago
Too bad the city of Chicago half-assed their redevelopment of Northerly Island. Half the island is still closed because the waves kept on destroying the paved trail along the eastern side. The artificial reefs and barrier islands the engineers said were needed to avoid this weren't constructed because of budgetary reasons.