The Citizens Coalition Against Noise Pollution
Reflecting On the Lack of Acoustical Consideration at Ground Zero
By Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D.
New Yorkers, like many residents around the world, are being inundated by noise from automobiles, aircraft, trains, cooling devices and power tools, not to mention the most recent invasion of boom cars and cell phones. The result--the number one complaint to the City's Quality of Life hotline is NOISE.
In response to the growing noise problem, Mayor Bloomberg launched an initiative in October 2002 called Operation Silent Night to combat excessive noise in 24 high-noise neighborhoods. The police were armed with sound meters and given the authority to seize audio equipment and issue fines and summonses to violators. The latest data indicate the effectiveness of this program in that it has led to over two hundred thousand summonses being issued, two hundred cars being seized and over 15,000 arrests. Often when a noise complaint is being investigated by police, it leads to an arrest for other crimes, e.g. drugs seized from a noisy household or boom car.
Mayor Bloomberg also directed the Department of Environmental Protection to revise the City's Noise Code, which when it was introduced over thirty years ago was a model for other cities. Now thirty years later, it cannot meet the demands of citizens who want a lower din, while still preserving the city's vibrant and exciting sounds, e.g. cheers at ballparks, hoorays by children as the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade characters pass by, and shouts greeting the falling of the ball on Times Square on New Year's Eve.
When the City Council held its hearing on the proposed Revised Noise Code, the city's construction industry strongly objected to the Construction Management section which includes rules pertaining to noise mitigation at construction sites, e.g. a plan to he prepared for each construction site that would be in accordance with the provisions of the section that advises on mitigation strategies, methods, procedures and technology. Objections from the city's developers were not surprising in light of the findings of Michael Gerrard, a New York City environmental attorney. He examined a large number of Environmental Impact Statements that accompanied proposed projects in the city and found that these new developments would increase noise levels from one to three dBA. Yet, he discovered that no environmental impact statement he looked at was rejected by the city on the grounds that the project would create unacceptable noise levels. (Personal Communication, 1990). Thus, if each new building is allowed to add one or two dBA to the overall ambient level of a community, then ten new buildings in the community would more than double its ambient sound level. The city has not yet developed nor expressed interest in developing a technique that would recognize the impact of small increments on the overall ambient level in communities. Is it any wonder that New York City's soundscape grows noisier with each passing year!
That developers are fighting a requirement setting down detailed construction rules to mitigate noises during the building phase is underscored by the ill-prepared environmental impact statement, with no discussion of abating construction noise, that was recently approved for a tall building to be erected just a short distance from an elementary school in lower Manhattan. Then the Councilman representing the school and I looked at the environmental impact statement for this project, we insisted that an acoustical engineer be hired to deal with the concerns of the parents of the schoolchildren who would be adversely affected by months of construction noise. Apparently, things haven't changed from the time Mr. Gerrard conducted his study.
New York City's residents welcome Operation Silent Night and are now looking forward to the Revised Noise Code that the Mayor signed in December 2005, which should take effect in about a year. With New York City now facing major development in lower Manhattan because of 9/11 and the revitalization of other neighborhoods as the city bounces hack from that horrible day five years ago, more than ever New York needs to he cognizant of its acoustical environment. Under the Revised Code the commissioner will be adopting rules that identify noise mitigation strategies for certain devices and activities, including steel plates, and these rules call for mitigation measures for sensitive receptors. An advisory committee-comprised of representatives from the utility and construction industries, a City Council representative and an acoustical expert--is to assist the Department of Environmental Protection in carrying out the rules under this section.
In January 2004, I wrote to the Chair of the selection committee for the Ground Zero Memorial to inquire about the role of the soundscape in the design of this Memorial. Before receiving a reply and after the selection of the design, a Newsweek reporter called to ask my opinion about the Ground Zero memorial called Reflecting Absence. After speaking with me and other interested parties including the architects Michael Arad and Peter Walker, an article was written entitled: "Reflecting Absence ... of Silence" which clearly indicated how little thought the architects had given to acoustics. The Memorial will consist of two chasms where the Twin Towers once stood and water will fall 30 feet from ground level into a pool where it will drain off another fifteen foot ledge. I raised two points: 1) Was the impact of the surrounding soundscape, a thriving, active noisy area, considered in the design of the Memorial? 2) Will the waterfall, which may be the largest ever artificially constructed, generate a crashing cacophony of sounds? I was concerned that intrusive noises from the surrounding environment and a very loud waterfall would negate the quiet, somber atmosphere associated with memorials and shrines.
Much to my dismay Mr. Walker responded that "street-level sound does not keep him up at night." This response is so dismissive of the noise issue. As to whether the bedrock level itself will become a massive echo chamber, Mr. Walker responded that he didn't know. Maybe he should have responded: "I didn't think of it," possibly because he hadn't given it any thought.
When the chair of the selection committee responded to my letter, its role in the selection process had ended and I was referred to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's representatives whom I had difficulty in contacting. Not simply satisfied with my quotes in the Newsweek article, I continued to voice my opinion that the Ground Zero Memorial team had ignored acoustical issues. Then on May 12, 2005, I learned that Daniel Euser, a water architecture consultant, had erected a mock-up of the waterfall in his backyard in Richmond Hill, Ontario to deal with the noise issues. Mr. Euser was asked to create a veil that will not splash ... or roar deafeningly. (David Dunlap, New York Times, May 12, 2005). Still as the Times article noted, water cannot be scaled--that is, its performance in real life cannot be extrapolated from a small scale model.
Subsequently, I learned in a personal communication from Mr. Euser that sound was not an issue until he was hired, about a year after I raised questions about the potential noise problems emanating from the waterfall. He also worried that lessening the sound level may compromise the aesthetics of the project. Mr. Euser's testing continues and additional architects and acoustical engineers have been brought on board to deal with the acoustical problems involved with the memorial.
Much has been written about the safety issues of Daniel Libeskind's design of the Freedom Tower but nothing, to my knowledge, has been written about the acoustical implications. For example, absent from any writings was a concern for the wind turbines that were to be placed at the top of the Freedom Tower as a means at obtaining clean electricity from atmospheric winds. The low frequency noise generated by these turbines may have brought an intrusive hum to lower Manhattan. After several months of contacting people to complain about the potential hum, including the media and city agencies, I finally spoke with a representative of Silverstein Properties, the landlord for the proposed tower. After voicing my concern about the hum from the tower's turbines, the representative said a press conference would be held shortly and: You will be pleased by what you will learn at the press conference. Indeed, the wind turbines were removed and replaced by another energy source. The alteration very likely did not come about because of the fear of the potential hum but more likely because of the changes made to the upper portion of the tower.
After reflecting on the lack of interest in acoustics exhibited by the plans for Ground Zero, the author urges the Department of Environmental Protection to carefully monitor developers' noise mitigation plans to see that they are in compliance with the Code. This Department should also evaluate the effectiveness of the construction sections in the Code as to whether they are indeed lessening the impact of construction noise on individuals living, working and studying near construction sites. If not, the construction sections should be corrected without waiting thirty plus years for a major Noise Code revision. Beyond the Noise Code, New York City should pay closer attention to Environmental Impact Statements for new buildings to determine whether they are underestimating impacts on overall ambient levels in communities. To be less than vigilant about new construction mitigation strategies and overall impacts on the environment after the buildings are in place is to expose New Yorkers to even greater noise in the future and a soundscape that will be even more unpleasant.
Arline L. Bronzaft is a Professor Emerita at Lehman College, City University of New York and serves as a member of the Council on the Environment of New York (non-paid volunteer, appointed by Mayor Bloomberg as well as the three previous Mayors). Dr. Bronzaft does research, writes, lectures, and advises anti-noise groups, in the U.S. and abroad, on the hazards of noise to health and well-being.
Originally published in 'Soundscape: The Journal of Acoustic Ecology' by World Forum for Acoustic Ecology.
E-mail