Noise and UNA Governance

The UNA managed to implement a noise bylaw about a decade ago (see also, UBCBoG).  It's not clear that the bylaw has any actual effect though. Infractions are complainant driven and the UNA has no bylaw office to monitor or enforce violations of the bylaw. Furthermore, the bylaw is set such that the most persistent noise issues, landscaping and equipment and activities in public spaces, don't violate the terms of the bylaw.

Over the years three categories of noise complaint have arisen: landscaping equipment noise, institutional noise (institutional building and related activities, frats), and playground/park noise.  Landscaping equipment noise falls within acceptable levels of  the bylaws and is typically ignored by the authorities. Institutional noise complaints have arisen from time to time, but due to their nature tend also to be ignored and don't usually violate the noise bylaw.  Playground and park noises however have been an ongoing site of conflict.

Playground noise conflicts have a long history in the UNA. Right from the planning days of the Old Barn Community Centre to the thwarted Wesbrook Place Basketball Court arguments over what constitutes "inflicting unacceptable noise" on residents have motivated decisions to keep or cancel outdoor play areas.  What constitutes unacceptable seems tied to the age of a playground user - noise from younger park users is generally accepted; noise from youth or adults tends to be frowned upon. Basketball courts are a good example of this situation. 

The original plans for the park alongside of the  Old Barn Community Centre included a half court basketball area. I was a community rep on the planning committee and was quite impressed with the landscape architect's plans that included a lot of natural play scapes (as opposed to traditional play equipment) and accommodated multi-age/intergenerational park use with a small basketball space worked in.  However, when presented to the UNA board and the CEO of UBC Properties trust two complaints were lodged: (1) the basketball court will attract people from outside the community, and (2) the noise will be an unreasonable intrusion into the lives of people living alongside of the park.  The landscape plans were tossed out and the architect was instructed to produce a more community relevant park. The result is the large lawn and small installation of equipment suitable for young children. 

It took a concerted campaign by youth to get a basketball court. The new location of that court was telling - it was placed alongside Thunderbird Boulevard, a busy campus arterial road. Even so it worked as a positive social space for an intergenerational set of community residents. Recently we almost lost it, but with a bit of pushback it was moved from the street to a parking lot.

The current anti-basketball campaign replicates the same arguments and objections that swirled around the Hawthorn Place Court. Time will tell if a local youth campaign will get the court back. If they do get one, I suspect it will also be in a place less congenial for the safety and wellbeing of the court users (the Triumph parking lot might be a location).  As previously, it doesn't take a majority to defeat a basketball court, just one or two older men with power and connections. That was what happened in Hawthorn and it seems to have been the case more recently in Wesbrook. 

The noise of children in playgrounds shifts the terms of debate differently. Here those who try to frame the intrusion of noise into the quiet enjoyment of their homes tend to find themselves cast as anti-child and unfriendly. Teenagers and youth are presented as vaguely threatening. The noise of young children, however, is greeted warmly. We can see how the same complaint - unreasonable noise- is often presented against both types of activities. Yet the cultural valuation of the complaints are assessed differently and those opposed to child noise come out on the losing end.

The UNA dealt with two prominent examples over the past years: a playground built in 2012 in Iona Green (Chancellor Place) and the use of the three Hawthorn Place playgrounds by a local private school (2013-2016).  In both cases the UNA ultimately decided that while there was evidence of noise it was reasonable noise.

The Iona Green playground conflict spanned nearly four years until the UNA decisively decided to do nothing about the complaints in 2016.  In 2012 UBC Community and Campus Planning, working in concert with the theological colleges, installed a small children's play ground in Iona Green. A previous playground in the neighbourhood had been displaced by redevelopment of one of the theological colleges. The colleges contributed a gift to UBC to assist in the funding of a new playground which was built with minimal engagement with residents in the area around the playground.  Complaints were inevitable. Within a year of the playground opening the UNA board (on which I served 2012-2016) was receiving emails and resident reports at an accelerating rate about the unreasonable noise levels created by the playground.

The residential buildings surrounding Iona Green created a glass and concrete pit around which sounds bounced and amplified with no structural dampening. Given that situation the ultimate solution was to relocate the playground or ignore the issue and get on with it. The UNA Board and Campus Planning held a series of consultations 2014-2016, the end result was a report to the board recommending leaving the playground were it was.  At the time I sympathized with the residents who found themselves the victim of a poor urban design.  Campus Planning was less sympathetic and the principals of the theological colleges were issuing biblical statements about being open to children. The UNA board voted to leave the playground were it was and stated that the sounds of children didn't constitute unreasonable noise by definition. 

This same problem played out again in Hawthorn Place with noise from a private school who used the parks without charge or permit. From about 2013 until 2017 or so the school used the three playgrounds in Hawthorn Place essentially as their private recreational spaces. Through out this time the UNA's official response was that the UNA had determined that there was no way to stop the school and the school told the UNA  they would continue to use the parks as they didn't believe the UNA had the legal right to prevent them since UBC Properties Trust had said it was okay for the school to use the parks.

In this case the noise issue was complicated by a private school using a UNA resource without permit or compensation (at the same time the UNA had a park use policy that involved  fee schedule for specific usages of the parks). The issue was resolved by the school relocating to the UEL portion of campus.  That said, the issue remained that the UNA's official perspective (and much public opinion) sided with the idea that children playing does not equal unreasonable sound.

The only substantive difference between noise from children's playgrounds and noise from outdoor basketball courts is who is making the noise. When it is children their sounds are registered as not noise, as a positive indicator of community belonging. The decisions makers and policy influencers talk about the importance of play for children. Those who oppose are described as selfish and lacking in empathy. With basketball courts the noise makers are defined as wayward teenagers and youth, potentially attracted from outside the community.  They are described as potential threats to the wellbeing of others. Yet the volume and nature of the sounds from both are empirically very much the same. What is different is the cultural values assigned to them: children are positive, teenagers and youth are disruptive.

As a person who has been both a child and a youth I can see good reasons for accommodating all ages of people. I also think we need to seriously reconsider our rhetoric around sounds (noise) and the extent to which we allow them or disallow them. With the push to greater housing density issues of sounds felt as intrusive will be more of a problem, so we need to think about both how we develop better tolerances for these sounds and also ways to mitigate them without shutting down youth activities.