Similarly people who live under flight paths of Pearson always get told to suck it up because the airport was there first, and there were warnings posted when new subdivisions are built within the flight paths.
 
Dan416 said:
Similarly people who live under flight paths of Pearson always get told to suck it up because the airport was there first, and there were warnings posted when new subdivisions are built within the flight paths.
Click to expand...

I think its important to stop getting caught up in the subjective. The objective or factual is what matters.

That said, the subdivisions near Pearson that do experience real issues w/noise, ought not to have been built at all, they weren't supposed to be originally, the area was zoned agriculture, then industrial for a reason. But lets not get too sidetracked.
 
Northern Light said:
Do you have any evidence for this, based on how sound travels, both at-grade, and at height?
Click to expand...
It's purely anecdotal but I can watch the planes descend and ascend all day from my place and never hear them. In my experience streetcars turning in and out of stations is magnitudes worse. Buses will shake buildings if they're going fast enough.
 
Mihairokov said:
It's purely anecdotal but I can watch the planes descend and ascend all day from my place and never hear them. In my experience streetcars turning in and out of stations is magnitudes worse. Buses will shake buildings if they're going fast enough.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate the observation, and I'm not suggesting its inaccurate; I think the problem with anecdotes though, in terms of extrapolation, is that they are just that, the personal experience.

Which is to say, your experience is based on your building, with your style of windows (open or closed), and the type of cladding/insulation present, with the angle of your unit in relation to the runway, and the particular height at which your unit is found. Given that sound projects in different directions, bounces off buildings/objects and is different at different heights for a host of reasons, the anecdote, in isolation is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion.

Now, for all of that, your observation might well be accurate at the general level, its simply that we don't have the evidence, in thread, to support that.
 
My house in East York used to be under YTZ flight paths and intrusive aircraft, but usually not Porter’s or other scheduled passenger services, even when I would find myself near the lake itself near Ashbridges because of their climb performance. These would be private planes, including seaplanes, low, slow and noisy, some of them probably using the DVP as a navigation aid.

It’s interesting to see people on Twitter and Bluesky responding to recent coverage, still claiming that the answer to YTZ is UPX when 1) it wasn’t the first time and 2) we are apparently seeing pushback against UPX dropping stops, agitation for UPX service at King-Liberty (without regard to technical feasibility), and in any case is going to end up more of a milk run than it is now.
 
Last edited:
So people want to get rid of the airport to have a city park. But, when you have a big island it might be very attractive to get used for development like a stadium or spa.
 
Northern Light said:
I can appreciate the observation, and I'm not suggesting its inaccurate; I think the problem with anecdotes though, in terms of extrapolation, is that they are just that, the personal experience.

Which is to say, your experience is based on your building, with your style of windows (open or closed), and the type of cladding/insulation present, with the angle of your unit in relation to the runway, and the particular height at which your unit is found. Given that sound projects in different directions, bounces off buildings/objects and is different at different heights for a host of reasons, the anecdote, in isolation is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion.

Now, for all of that, your observation might well be accurate at the general level, its simply that we don't have the evidence, in thread, to support that.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence to provide? I don't see the point in this exercise if you're simply using it to dissuade others and their opinions.
 
Mihairokov said:
Do you have any evidence to provide?
Click to expand...

I didn't, off the top of my head..........but you sent me looking.

So here is the Noise Management Report from the Airport itself......from 2022:


From same:

1728152789442.png


1728152830317.png


1728152869398.png


Mihairokov said:
I don't see the point in this exercise if you're simply using it to dissuade others and their opinions.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from holding or offering any opinion.

I'm simply asking that opinions be presented as such rather than offered as facts.

Ie.

" There is no place more affected by the airport than that building" is an absolute statement which suggests that no other building could possibly be more effected notwithstanding different windows, cladding, building angles, and the height of a given unit.

I have no issue w/saying "In my experience, within a building located very closed to the airport, I found the noise issue to be less significant than....."

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top