How Restaurants Got So Loud
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
It was completely unusable for what me and my fiance usually do at the library. The study rooms had the ventilation system for the building running through them with a loud dull noise making going back out to the playground-ridden small library with build int coffee-shop feel like putting on active noise supressing headphones. And the playground + café + it being placed in a mall (as opposed to across the street in the municipality building like it used to be) made reading or browsing a hard task.
My fiance who has ASD really has no public space available at all in this city anymore and we are moving to another city where we know of accessible quieter places, including parks and libraries without built-in noise generators.
./rant
Carpeting here is extremely rare. Scandinavian minimalism everywhere. The article helps me understand why the local chinese restaurang, with carpeting, tablecloth and padded chairs, is so nice to stay at.
What the libraries need is a quiet reading room, rather like the trains have added quiet carriages.
I don't know which libraries you are meaning, but it sounds like their study rooms are broken, rather than the whole concept is broken.
So, lets fix the study rooms! :)
This idea that the primary functional purpose of an important space should be some kind of afterthought is rather depressing, but I guess is follows from the entertainment-centric culture we live in. The purpose of a library is to read, not to entertain your kids.
First, old-fashioned academic libraries existed; later, public lending libraries existed, but only because various people noticed that the existence of academic libraries was a good thing thing that should be more widely accessible to people outside academia and/or religious institutions. At no point has the purpose of public lending libraries been to provide the community centre and entertainment resource that some people want them to be.
At no point has the purpose of public lending libraries been to provide the community centre
Of course, they have not traditionally been free-use community spaces in the sense of "hey, come to the library and drop your kids off so they can run around and play" or anything like that. But I don't think anybody's asking for that, either.
Judging by your spelling of "centre," perhaps you're not in the U.S. and therefore have a different experience and perspective.
This is such a straw man. Unless you have an actual academic need for an actual Shakespeare first folio, you can read that text without needing an original printing. If you have such a need, the Palo Alto Public Library isn’t likely to have a it there for the asking.
Academic libraries at universities have their purpose, but your local public library isn’t going to typically be used by Shakespeare scholars.
Reading restricted collection books is a pretty low percentage of why people visit libraries. Reading ultra rare, priceless books is almost non-existent as a percentage of library visits.
This is precisely what I have been thinking while reading all these comments, but unable to express so succintly.
Though 4 Euros ($4.50) is less than half what I pay for most books I want on Amazon.
It would be very expensive for me to feed my book-reading habit like that. I couldn't afford it without libraries.
It's nice that you can afford to spend money on books, but we need a solution for everyone else, especially if we agree that books are a good thing for society.
Recently there was that op-ed in Forbes that said we don't need libraries because we have Amazon: https://qz.com/1334123/forbes-deleted-an-op-ed-arguing-that-... -- Was such a disaster that Forbes limped away from it by deleting it.
We who didn't have a problem being quiet and going there to either read quietly or to bring books home, going there for the books, seem to be much more likely to actually visit as adults. Is there any evidence to suggest people who use libraries as playgrounds are more likely to use them as adults? Because if there isn't we are removing one of extremely few quiet places for no gain. I remember going to the library or staying after school to be able to read my Asimov and Douglas Adams, which would have been hard at home. If people who have quiet homes came there to let their children off to play I would be less likely to go there, just like I'm less likely to go there now when that is happening.
The new model may be valid, but maybe we should just close the libraries altogether and start calling them "Community Centers".
You can either have no libraries at all or libraries that cater to a different purpose, one that they can offer better then your phone.
If it were true that the purpose of public libraries had been superseded by the internet then no one would be using public libraries, and they would all have closed by now due to lack of funding or public interest. That public libraries continue to exist, and that people continue to use them, suggests otherwise.
For what it's worth, there's still a lot of information you can acquire legally and for free from a library that you can't get both legally and for free from the internet.
The Berlin city libraries absolutely have spaces for children to play (loudly) and also make point of events with readings for children, and so on. A generation will grow up associating libraries as part of their life.
Watch them struggle.
Depending on the forum, and the size of the comments, you'll sometimes see something like:
TL;DR
"too long; didn't read"
In some cases, you'll see a post where there will be a "TL;DR" section summarizing the "long form" version just below it.
The funny thing is, the "long form" might only be a paragraph or two, but apparently for a certain segment of the population who read forums, even that much information is "TL;DR" worthy.
These people don't want to read anything that won't fit inside a tweet. I'd dare say that for some, even 280 characters is just too much text to digest.
It leaves no room for thoughtful discourse. It leaves no room for intelligent debate and conversation.
I see such brush-offs of conversation online, and couple it with what I have heard of some people who eschew being alone; who need noise (particularly people around them talking with each other) so that they don't have to listen to their own thoughts - and it makes me shudder to think to what end our society will arrive at.
In a way, we are already witnessing its decline.
There is nothing that will suck the enjoyment out of a story faster than a high-school curriculum.
No, libraries serve a specific purpose. You can want them to be banks, or restaurants, or laundromats or whatever, but that doesn't make them anything but libraries. And besides, everyone else wants libraries to be libraries, so you've been outvoted in that regard.
And that when a society devalues scholarship, it's on its way to the condition of, say, Venezuela.
Right now libraries are dying. In my city, 80% of public library use is high school kids or university kids (overflow from the busy university library) studying there during peak exam times, outside of that its extremely underutilised. And for my hometown its even worse, even 15 years ago there would maybe be a handful of people there at a time, in a building that could easily fit 30-50 people.
Turning those libraries not only into a book repository but also as a place to drop your kid to play with other kids while you read, to study (think study rooms with outlets for laptops), to grab a coffee, attend a reading, etc. to me is an amazing initiative.
And there is synergy as well: you can go grab a coffee with your friend whilst your kids play, maybe browse for a new sci-fi book - and hey there is a reading which you can attend whilst your kid is preoccupied and the reading doesn’t feel dead because some other visitors and students are also attending and even if you get thirsty you can grab a tea :)
This whole wall of text might seem a little rantlike but I truly do love libraries (my mom used to take me) and seeing them reinvigorated like that is very cool.
Transforming libraries to something children associate with fun, where young people can study together in groups and where culture events happen - is what should be done. Make libraries a bastion of culture and community. And that is not incompatible with a place where you can sit in peace, it's just not everywhere.
Besides libraries should change! Who the heck goes to a library to look at encyclopedias to write papers anymore? If you are doing academic research, go to an academic library — a place where you’ll find few kids. But a community library? That should be a place where everyone is welcome and excited about books, not a coworking space for old curmudgeons. If you want a perfectly silent reading environment — go to your home.
But to get excited about a book you have to be immersed in it, and that requires reading it and really focusing on the subject matter.
If people are talking all the time, they're not reading books, and others aren't able to enjoy their books.
> ... not a coworking space for old curmudgeons.
Old curmudgeons aren't part of "everyone"?
Do other people need silence, like absolute silence, to read?
Before I worked for myself, I never worked in any office that remotely came near to silence. Most were roughly the equivalent of moderately loud cafes, at least.
Libraries are just repositories for literary or artistic works. They have a secondary function of acting as a "third space" or community center. Being able to find places to read is part of that, but there is no reason you should expect them to be tranquil zen gardens at all times. Most people should be able to tune out the general background noise of kids playing or whatever. It's really just loud conversations that cause problems.
Hell, most public libraries in my town are basically just de facto homeless shelters.
Most libraries I've been to have a large section dedicated to kids books and activities, often with stuff animals, blocks, etc that kids can use for creative play.
There are usually also rooms that you can reserve for work or study, and tables out in the open that people can sit at to read or work.
Kids are loud and energetic. Usually older people enjoy the vitality they bring to a space. The main age group bothered by them are 20 and 30 somethings who don't have kids and aren't used to being around them.
But then your kids won't want to go there in the future, because all kids grow up to become adults who want loud places for their kids to grow up to visit loud places...
The main problem we experience is a complete lack of quiet places, and since you don't want any, and that seems to be a majority opinion, we won't have any.
Is the majority really in favor of being loud? I personally believe that it is in fact a minority - just a loud minority. People who enjoy silence are also usually less vocal about their interests - sadly. Because from a public health perspective it's the loud people who can learn something from those enjoying silence.
There's really no reason why there can't be both, especially a library.
In fact a lot of libraries do exactly this, don't they?
Typical library arrangement, at least here in America:
- Center of library has long tables with multiple seats; can be used for group interaction - Sides of library have all the bookshelves - Between the bookshelves and the outer wall there are more private desks. It's naturally quite quiet here because even if the central "public" area is noisy, you have all the bookshelves between you and the central area
This is so different to me, it's ridiculous. Loud is not happy. Loud is not sad. Loud is just loud. I'm not going to a loud library. If your kids can't be quiet, then keep them out please.
Probably there should be libraries for children that are louder, but that's a different conversation.
When I go on bushwalks there are teenagers with their damned bluetooth speakers. Every business blares their horrible music at you to get you out of there faster. Workplaces want insanely distracting open-plan offices.
Can we not have one quiet place?
I've never thought about it like that but it's so true. Loudest one wins every time.
Also I just learned a new word, "squaller".
A terrific example is the Jefferson Library in lower Manhattan. It is technically a children's library to the point where it's nearly impossible to find bathrooms that are adult accessible without children.
It is also possibly the best quiet library in the city because the upper levels of the space are adult only and nearly pin drop silent. You can absolutely have both.
Actively fighting to make them all louder is what's causing it here, not a lack of libraries.
https://www.senatehouselibrary.ac.uk/using-the-library/inter...
I was just at an event a month or so ago that had a DJ in the exhibit hall blasting music at a volume that was actively preventing people from having easy conversations. Which is sort of the purpose of being there. Not listening to some DJ who apparently has to work corporate events to pay the rent but nonetheless thinks people are there to listen to him.
After complaining to the organizers, they turned things down a bit but this is a pervasive problem. Even when I'm eating by myself, I still find the music in some restaurants both annoyingly loud and not what I would consider pleasant background music for a meal.
This is by design to get you out of there quickly to free a spot for another paying customer.
I vote with my wallet and suggest you do too.
If a restaurant has music I don't like, which seems to be a trend nowadays, I get the message that they don't want me to be there and leave immediately.
One day I noticed the music was much louder than usual, and asked the staff to turn it down. I figured it was a mistake because it was normally much quieter.
They told me this was the new company policy. To set the music uncomfortably loud to make people leave, after finishing their food or drink.
(Around the same time they also instigated a 30 minute time limit on Wifi if you bought something. Even though I was willing to keep buying, I couldn't get through a new tea every 30 minutes!)
Theory being it's more profitable to make your customers leave and make room for others, than to make a place people want to go to.
I haven't been back. Even with noise-cancelling headphones(∗), and earbuds under the headphones, it was too loud for me. And the wifi policy was really annoying.
Sadly, I've noticed ultra loud music seems to be the policy at a lot of places these days. I find Starbucks and Costa ok - but some of my friends won't go with me because they find the music there too loud as well.
(∗) I wear noise-cancellers at most places now. It probably makes me look unsocial or "hipster", but it's to protect my ears from the loud music just about everywhere insists on playing, and helps me concentrate when I'm working in a café. I enjoy talking with people if they want to.
I'm just wondering if that would protect your ears, do as much harm, or double it.
But the basic answer to your question is, no, it doesn't double the sound energy.
To the extent the headphones are successful at creating an inverse sound to cancel incoming sound, that will reduce the sound energy reaching the inner ears. The sound and its "mirror" don't add up to increase energy, rather, the energy reaching the ears is reduced where waves cancel.
(The same thing happens in, say, optical interference patterns, and coastal waves. All the energy which seems to mysteriously disappear where waves cancel is, in fact, accounted for by increasing at the places the same waves interfere contructively. In the case of headphones, it's going to be rather more subtly accounted for either elsewhere in the spatial pattern around and on the speaker, and/or by the speaker acting as a net energy absorber.)
Active noise-cancellers also have a passive component. The big squishy cups on mine (Bose QC-35). These of course reduce incoming sound energy too.
But it's more complicated than that. Ears have a sort of physical volume control of their own (using tiny muscles), which reacts to the sound level. As far as I'm aware, damage is more likely deeper in the ear, past that stage.
So anything which alters the ear's coarse volume response might produce a more complicated damage response than simply measuring incoming levels would suggest.
I apply that theory: I sometimes listen to music on the headphones, in high volume environments. This seems to mask out the environmental noise better, and my theory is this isn't just psychoacoustic masking, it's causing my ears to block out more sound physically, helping to protect them physically. When doing this I listen to music which has a consistent sound level, rather than, say, a podcast or something subtle like classical.
I've read that noise-cancellers produce a hiss which annoys some people. I can't say I've noticed much volume to the hiss, and I used to assume it was residual signal from the signal processing. But it may be that's intended to interact with the ear muscles too.
So, if it's quieter, you're ok.
If the device makes the outside world louder, then yes, you might want to turn it off. (This actually happens on my headphones when taking a call.)
Also, whatshisface is exactly correct.
Some cafés that genuinely want your business make plugs available to the customers, some will even go as far as to put in plugs with USB adapters as well because they are making it clear: I want you to be here. Other places have no special extra plugs (just what you'd expect for a room that size) and that's fine, but some places have intentionally NO plugs and that's not an accident, that's by design.
Same thing with the wifi policy. I don't care if you have wifi, or don't have wifi, but if you aggressively block ~50% of all sites, seemingly at random, or have a time limit on usage…the message it clear, you only have Wifi so you can say "we have wifi" but you don't really mean it.
I only hope to patronize places that are welcoming, even if I'm not relying on those facilities that day. Those are the kinds of places I want to stay in business.
The kinds of places with limited internet and no plugs are the kinds of places that I don't want to be in business tomorrow, so I had better make sure not to give them a penny today.
It’s actually a fairly nice model. If you want to work in someone’s commercial space, paying for it is entirely reasonable.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/jan/08/pay-per-minut...
London: https://london.ziferblat.net/
Manchester: https://www.ziferblat.co.uk/
8p/min = £4.80 per hour. Bearing in mind I'd pay £5 for coffee and a cake in many places that seems reasonable.
UK: many public access spaces have places to sit and public wifi (e.g. central reference library, University buildings, some City Council buildings &c)
These are not generally the kind of places where you would bring a laptop.
When I go into frequently-empty places I find that the staff, who should have all the time in the world to help, are actually more distant, because they're so used to filling up their time chatting together or doing other stuff that when a customer actually does show up it's like some unforeseen situation they didn't plan for.
http://johnlawrenceaspden.blogspot.com/2018/09/do-right-thin...
One where I live has a "no laptops at mealtimes" sign. If you get out a laptop, they ask you to leave. If you come during a quiet period, get out a laptop, and are still using it when reaches a mealtime, they ask you to put it away.
To be fair they do really good food, it's always packed at mealtimes, and they explain their policy is because they want to make a place where people appreciate food and conversation.
I like them and wouldn't want them to shut down.
Another place doesn't have a sign. I sat down and ordered a proper meal. Then I got my laptop out. I needed to work for the next couple of hours. Table space wasn't a problem, and it wasn't an especially posh place.
After I'd been working for 20 minutes, a waiter came over to tell me I'd have to put the laptop away. After a rather awkward conversation we agreed I could cancel my already ordered (and presumably partly cooked) meal, because I'd have to go and find another restaurant.
I won't mind so much if that one is replaced.
I applaud it.
Some places do, and you have all the reasons in the world to favor these places as they match your needs, but it seems kind of silly expecting that every place should cater to every type of customer.
Coffee shops will never have enough seating anyway for the amount of coffee they sell.
But who wants to spend any time or money at all in a café that's designed to be hostile to customers?
I had a good chat once with a guy who runs a small coffee roastery and number of fancy third-wave coffee shops in a posh university town. One of the most popular coffee shops in town went completely bankrupt and he ended up taking it over. The first thing he did was turn off the WiFi; to hear him tell it, revenue doubled or tripled overnight as soon as he did. Turns out actually having available seats can drive sales, and having a giant store in a high-rent area full of people who buy one $4 coffee and sit there for five hours isn't profitable. At the time, he was in the process of renovating half of the space to be formal paid coworking.
(I personally think there's room for middle ground. My favorite local coffee shop only allows laptops in a dedicated section, which has ample power but also higher-density seating than the normal area. When it's warm enough to sit outside, they allow laptops outside during the week but not on weekends. Another favorite coffee shop just turns the WiFi off on weekends.)
The problem with that café is their hours miss both the before-work rush, and the after-work rush, with them closing shop at 6pm. You have to be _open_ to take money.
There is also the trouble that most of the people who will be around at close of business likely came in an hour or two earlier, so you are essentially paying someone to monitor the cafe without bringing in any new revenue.
And it's not just them, I see a lot of local businesses in this area struggling, but the problem is they aren't open to take my money at reasonable times. There's another café even closer to me that is trying to make it, but they are closed 2 days a week and it's not the weekend, I'm not sure which days they are, so it's hard to check it out. It's just baffling to me - you pay rent 24/7, you have bills every month, and staff … but if you want to take money (generate income) you have to be open. If you want to make the most money, shouldn't you try to have your doors open the most amount of time you can?
The dumbest thing in my mind is that they are open for like 4 hours on Saturday (7am - 11am).
I think the problem with that particular coffee shop though is that they lady who owns it also runs a catering / event hosting business, so the needs of the coffee shop come last.
[aside rant] We have a very strange cafe culture in the UK compared to continental Europe: too many chains, too expensive, poor quality, takeaway coffee. The latest insult is chains not wanting to wash cups, so now we have to bring in re-usable cups. At least they're offering discounts, for now.
Here in Germany some places even give out reusable cups with deposit for to go (as an alternative to paper if you forgot your own travel mug)
- I need to buy/consume something every X minutes
- have to overhear irrelevant stupid/mundane conversations
- people have a habit of bringing their dogs everywhere now and I'm not even going to get into how disruptive that is
- deal with the passive-aggressiveness of the employees when you spend a couple of hours there
Whenever I work from home and I need a 'public' place in order to separate home and work, I go to the local library for which I pay taxes. It's probably the only place I can walk in, not be expected to buy anything and just enjoy the silence. Other times when the weather is nice I just go the park or on a bench on the public trail and use my phone as a hotspot.
The bagel/coffee/sandwich/donut shops are businesses where people should walk in, buy something, have a date/meeting/chat and then leave. I'm probably a weirdo but again, I never got this working from a coffee shop thing.
This is an old tradition.
Cafes, bars, tea houses, etc have served as social hubs and placed to read or work on documents (now computers) for literally thousands of years, everywhere on the planet. There's simply a social need for a space like that, because it's a more efficient usage of space to have people work on a revolving basis in a shared space than everyone have a private space of their own or not be able to work.
It's only with the modern invention of corporate coffee shops that misvalue social fabric that we see the churn happening. (PS -- those corporate stores are wrong about the short term boost from churn improving their long term fortunes, at least from what I've heard from the big ones.)
I also find it interesting you approve of one "office-like" usage -- having a chat or meeting -- but disapprove of another -- working on documents.
You still can see coffee spots as social places in developing countries.
However, there are other shops that actively cultivate the kind of culture you mention. Starbucks is probably the most prominent. It's something that Starbucks deliberately promoted since inception.
You seem already aware that it's nice to have a 3rd place besides home and work. But once it's a coffee shop you don't get it?
Exactly. Let me explain an example. I ran into an old friend once close to a Tully's a couple of years back and went in to get some coffee and catch up. Unfortunately there was no place for us to sit down at a table because all the tables were taken by single individuals working on their laptops. One of them was actually in a conf call. So we skipped that and went to have brunch at a full blown restaurant.
Also, assuming you're willing to drive a couple minutes out of your way, there's usually a slightly less busy Starbucks with tables available.
Maybe there's a business opportunity here for either a new kind of chain with a different brand identity... a non-music coffee shop or something. I know a place near UC Davis where it's actually disallowed to be studying there. No laptops on the tables. But it isn't a chain.
Or an opportunity for something between a WeWork and a Starbucks, a Costco of coffee shops, maybe with a membership fee on top of the cost of drinks.
Quite often I get to eavesdrop on interesting conversations. Typically people launching new business ventures of various kinds.
you also seem to be looking at things negatively. here's an alternate view:
- you don't have to buy something on a timer.
- - get to know the owners/workers, and they'll enjoy your visits, no matter how long. most of the cafes i visit love it when i bring my dog for instance.
- - if a cafe is (nearly) empty, you sitting there provides natural marketing for the cafe in the form of social proof (no one likes being the only person in a business). i usually leave when i notice it getting full so others can enjoy it too, but if it's half empty, i have no qualms staying for a while without the pressure of buying something on a timer.
- stupid conversations are easy to tune out; interesting ones are the hard ones. at the very least, it feeds the superiority complex nicely.
- dogs are bundles of joy and love, and make (most) people happy.
- again, get to know and show interest in the owners/workers and develop rapport with them. they may even give you free stuff.
I'm at the point where I would pay extra for businesses and facilities that didn't allow animals. The service animal law is also being used fraudulently by so many people, I just assume it unless I can see the person is blind.
and that point was not so much "different strokes for different folks", but "different strokes for the same folks", as we each embody multiple perspectives and our conscious brain can choose among them (a lesson i keep learning over and over).
keeping dogs away from human eating areas reduces your chances of disease by a negligible amount. you would be much better off requiring everyone to wash their hands and/or disinfect their phones upon entering.
Citation needed
in any case, the primary transmission concerns are poop and mucus membrane contact. so again, the main thing you need to do is wash your hands with soap (and don't play with poop or make out with the dog).
Because of this, one of the easiest ways to improve your odds of success, when you own a restaurant, is to lease LESS space than you need. Basically there's a lot of good reasons to make your customers wait in line:
1) You're not paying to rent the sidewalk in front of your restaurant
2) Having a few customers waiting out front is a great advertisement for your place.
Obviously, this isn't great for customers, but if you're a restaurateur it's awesome.
Out in Vegas, restaurants and clubs routinely pay people to wait out front to make their place seem "in-demand."
The question is, why is everyone else using it as a library with snacks. As I said, it's always packed in the late evenings.
The neighbouring coffee shops are also packed until midnight.
Here are some ideas:
- Why not, it's nice to do.
- Some of us are happy to pay for it.
- Lots of people want an evening place, aka "third space", but don't care for bars, alcohol and shouting. They want to quietly sit and read late at night, socially around other people, with some talking some of the time, but not constantly.
- For many, home is not suitable for working, studying or relaxing. It depends a lot on the home.
- It helps to be around other people to focus and relax, and it's nice to have an ice cream and/or bagel and/or drink while doing it.
- There's no library nearby.
- There's a great library further away, but it's shut in the evenings. (Our libraries are often packed with people. Until they close, then everyone has to find somewhere else.)
- If you enjoy reading/writing around strangers being a bit fun and lively, you won't get that in a library. But a bar is too much. Maybe it doesn't work for you, but for me and many others, the buzz from people just being happy in the vicinity is quite helpful.
- No affordable co-working spaces. The few co-working spaces are either rent-per-month (too expensive if you don't use them a lot), or closed in the evening to daily renters. Anyway, the day rate (~$20/day) is too much if you're only out for a couple of hours, and don't have good money (most people I see around are not working in IT, btw).
- Not enough friendly communal spaces. (Btw, I've helped run one of these. It was really hard work!)
Another commenter here said this was because US servers depended on tips, while tipping is not done in European restaurants. Maybe so; overall I like the European method much better.
I've not found the environment very conducive to getting much work done though. It's too noisy and there aren't enough desks. I've had more success with the Department of Coffee and Social Affairs [2] which charges in the same way as a coffee shop but feels more like a co-working space.
Conversely, there's a new coffee shop in Chicago that is designed from the ground up to facilitate work. It has tons of natural light, freely available whiteboards and almost no music call Limitless coffee. It is such a joy to not have to deal with the din that I go there even when I'm not working. You can almost hear yourself think.
One thing I've noticed about a lot of coffee shops is that they have a big morning rush and a big lull during the day. Even Starbucks has a bunch of offers incentivizing you to come back for 'happy hour'. I imagine they are trying to spread out traffic throughout the day. It seems like offering a nice place to work during the day, might actually be more optimal than discouraging longer stays. Maybe Starbucks could just turn down their music between 10-4 and offer promotions to co-workers.
Additional extra points would be if they would offer some external monitors as well. This was my dream for a while now.
IIRC even more expensive co-working spaces like WeWork don't offer that (some folks bring their own monitors). Maybe this could be a new business idea? Might be hard to break even at $10 though, not sure.
There are also a bunch of new cafes that are books oriented like Kibbitznest and Bibliophile (near the University of Chicago).
A couple of months ago, I went to a conference in San Diego, and went to a restaurant in the evening with colleagues. We could hardly hear the person next to us shouting. I left as soon as I had eaten.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and cynical...
Even if the management isn't against it, the employees are.
The problem with most bars isn't actually the volume of the music, but the loudness. The speakers are generally cheap speakers that are undersized and are then cranked so loud they're redlining and sound like shit.
I can stand in the middle of a nightclub with a well set up speaker system and have a conversation with a friend. Yet in most bars and pubs, which are places where I'd actually like to have a conversation, I have to shout at my mates and can barely hear a word they say.
It's absolutely correct too.
Some people are just obnoxiously loud, and if you have more of them in 1 group nearby, any experience from that place is ruined for me.
I can't even reliably pick out one voice in a largely empty room if there's other sources of noise (ie music playing in a pub, etc.) It makes things like meetups impossible and working in an open plan office a nightmare.
When that happens, I totally know what you mean about being unable to hear conversations in restaurants, bars, etc.
Even when my talking partner is aware, localising their voice from the din with one ear is really difficult. (Btw, there's some really impressive research at using AI techniques to help with that, which will makes it way into hearing aids eventually.)
Its at times like that I find it's way too easy to maintain a conversation with nods and yes/nos without having a clue what it's about. I've even done it in languages where I don't understand a word. I feel it says something about the speaker, that they can talk for ages without any confirmation that it's understood and no meaningful talk the other way :)
I have something similar - normal conversations are OK, but in loud environment it becomes very hard. Its not great to be the only one in group who doesn't understand what others are saying. I blew my hearing probably in front rows on metal concerts.
Frustratingly, I've done those online hearing tests which test your ability to hear human voices amidst background noise and they tell me I have no hearing loss.
However, my hearing cuts out around 9khz, which is low. Definitely not my listening equipment because my wife can hear >9khz just fine on the same gear.
I started to ask people if they could actually hear or understand while with them at a loud place and many told me they couldn’t - they were mostly pretending to understand after eventually giving up.
The world in which we evolved would have been almost silent, almost all of the time, apart from the sounds of birds and insects. And there would have been very little to 'look' at (no text/decor/branding, few hard surfaces, few straight lines, little color and texture variation). And of course no pollution, and very little to 'do'! So it shouldn't be a surprise to find that the sheer sensory intensity of modern living contributes towards depression and schizophrenia [1].
What is the endgame here?
I truly cannot picture what life would be like without car noise and light pollution.
There are far fewer cars in the city centre than most cities the size of Copenhagen; enough roads are restricted to people on foot or bicycles that relatively few people try and drive to, from or through it.
On OpenStreetMap, the pedestrianized roads are marked in a pale blue-grey [1].
They aren't labelled the same way on Google Maps, perhaps because on the smaller pedestrian streets vehicles aren't always completely banned, just strongly discouraged by the signs, surface, layout, and attitude of pedestrians.
The OSM cycle map layer needs a few updates for consistency, but most roads outside the very centre of the city have a separate cycle lane like one of these [2], or else almost no traffic. At school time or weekends I see 5-6 year old children cycling with their parents — other cyclists will overtake more carefully. Older children make similar journeys alone.
The Netherlands is similar. Within cities, the canals lead to some different approaches, and between cities, they provide nice long-distance cycling routes. I think the Netherlands is probably the better destination for a cycling holiday, but the difference between a Dutch and Danish city doesn't matter for a city holiday.
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/55.6802/12.5753
[2] https://ggwash.org/view/43010/copenhagen-uses-this-one-trick...
I would expect that the noise was in fact less than modern vehicles but the cities of the past were not full of the quiet sounds of nature that people like to whitewash their imagination with.
Racism was definitely the primary motivator of White flight for the cities, but I also wonder to what extent people just wanted to get away from industrial noise pollution, which surely must have been at a peak during that era.
I wonder if that hypothesis is related at all to hypothesis of bicameralism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)
Note: I haven't read the book, so maybe it was covered...
I am also very surprised that no one has figured out a way to offer a quieter version to customers like me. I'd pay more to have a quieter experience.
To a certain extent, this is actually true.
I have read more than a few stories recently where people have literally said they hate quietness, and need noise surrounding them (especially other people), so that they didn't have to be alone with their thoughts.
I find that to be depressing.
We pass the complaints along, but the response is usually "Corporate insists we do this, we hate it too, apparently it makes people buy more drinks".
In practice, at least from the data I've gathered, it drives people away.
It would really depend on the venue, but I managed and worked in a few bars and clubs in the mid 2000s and the daytime crowd preferred more quiet, but then in the evening, if the music was soft, there was a perception that the bar was “dead” or had fewer people tha. It actually did. A loud bar with few people gets more interest from the potential patrons because it’s perceived as more lively and crowded than it may actually be. Then it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy and actually becomes more lively and crowded. When your business is based on customer volume, quiet and contemplative is a fast way to go out of business. Exceptions are high end, romantic martini bars selling $18 drinks or scotch bars selling high end spirits to a discerning clientele. For your average brew-pub or standard “bar,” silence equals death. You can see this anywhere there is a strip of bars and clubs, the quiet places are the ones not selling as much. Most people go to bars at night for the purpose of socializing and having fun. Most bar patrons don’t associate “fun” with quiet. Anyone that has worked in the bar business knows that you make more money with loud than you do with quiet — with some exceptions of course.
Restaurants on the other hand, in my experience, quiet does better for the restaurants that have been around awhile, while loud and lively tends to prop up the newer places because the “energy” reinforces the “hype” around perceived popularity.
Places serving food have piped music so you finish your meal more quickly so they sell more covers; you're unlikely to sit around chatting afterwards with music playing.
They also clear plates at the earliest chance providing an enhanced social pressure to finish.
One of the things there's always a whole section on is timing: every single interaction has a time-window in which it must occur. You must be greeted within (t1), you must be seated within (t2). Plates must be cleared within (t3), you must have a 'table touch' (is everything ok with your food?) within (t4), etc.
Some discrete note-taking is often needed (descriptions of all serving staff are required too). We're pretty good at it by now, but have been 'rumbled' once. You can tell when it happens—suddenly you start getting offered the opportunity to try all the different wines they have, for free, given free desserts. Of course it doesn't matter as the meal is paid for, and often slows down the service!
My pet hate is when I'm asked questions while I'm actually eating and I'm expected to answer with a mouth full of food.
I always dreamed of a restaurant that has call buttons on the table, like in a plane or hospital.
A lot of Japanese and Korean restaurants (and maybe more) have exactly that.
I definitely understand that this can be very annoying, but like I said, there are tradeoffs to both. Being a bit socially anxious myself, I prefer not to have to compete with the other diners for the server's attention, so the polling model is better for me.
as an aside, when I go to nicer restaurants I find that the servers tend to be more skilled/graceful. I don't know exactly how they do it, but they always seem to come by at the perfect moment to check whether the food is okay without interrupting a bite/conversation.
in theory, call buttons would be pretty nice, but I think some people would find it to cheapen the experience.
This is much preferred to a manager only hearing about a problem after all the food has been eaten or the customer has sat staring at a plate with unsatisfactory food on it while their companions eat (making everyone less comfortable as generally humans don’t like to eat when others haven’t had the opportunity to).
I assumed it was to cut costs for people who complain at the end to try and get free food.
Practically speaking, though, dpeck is right... shortly after the food is dropped, the waiter should confirm the meal is to the customer's expectations. This is also the chance for customers to ask for condiments, get a replacement fork for the one they dropped, etc. Nothing worse than sitting in front of a hot meal you can't eat and being unable to get the waiter's attention.
That would be "Waiter come taste the soup":
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094898/crazycredits?item=cz000...
More seriously, it all depends on the "level" of service, and - ultimately - on the ratio waiters/served people, which is usually between 1/6-1/10 (excellent service) and 1/25-1/30 (scarce or lacking service).
That they don't buy a music license is a cost saving measure.
They're ok when they first open, but after a year or two get a bit of a run down feeling.
I also walk past one of my local ones occasionally at 9:30 in the morning, there's always a few old men already drinking pints of lager in there, it's sad.
The worst part by far is how they never sit together, they all sit individually alone.
There are also some really excellent ones such as one I found near the south downs. Can't exactly remember where but it had two roaring log fires in it. Great Malvern one is nearly as good.
I have a local Wetherspoons and go occasionally. If it's quiet I'll stay. But sometimes it's unbearably loud just because it's packed with raucous people in a large, acoustically non-absorbent room, to the point that I hear "crackling" in my ears.
It's still much better than the pub next to it, which serves food I like, but is painfully loud all the time inside - even when it's completely empty. That's not acoustics. They play music at a hideous volume, and won't turn it down even when the place is empty - "company policy". I listen to music on headphones much of the day, sometimes quite loud. So it's not like I dislike music. Being the only two customers in a huge pub and unable to hear each other talk seems ridiculous to me.
We used to go regularly, for the food. Don't go any more - because of the music volume.
Another publike food place locally was really nice when we first went, shortly after it opened. It's become louder and louder each time we've visited - and now sadly that place is vetoed because of the volume too.
Again, it's because they play music ridiculously loud. It's lost the charm which I think was its selling point when they opened, and we won't go back.
Well, we joked we might go back wearing industrial ear defenders to make a point :)
At a fourth pub I went to an informal business meeting recently. It was afternoon, and not many customers yet. We had to ask them to turn down the music repeatedly just to hear each other.
Seems to be a theme. I'm not sure why they do it, because I doubt their staff or the other customers enjoy it much either.
Even better, one pub didn't have music at all. It was the best pub in town, and that's not just my opinion because it was one of the busiest pubs.
I wish it were like that again.
separate them when play becomes loud. take away toys etc. restore peace, give the toys back.
they will scream and fight it a lot the first few time, but if you keep a constant, predictable and strict response they'll get the idea, eventually, that they need to play in acceptable ways.
also make it clear that it only applies in specific time/places (evening, home, public indoor building) and where it's acceptable (afternoons, parks, etc)
I'm not a proponent of treating children identically to adults, but children should still be afforded some aspects of human dignity. Spraying them with a water bottle like a malfeasant feline is not a polite way to treat anyone, regardless of age.
If you do this to your child, you are teaching them that this is an acceptable way to treat people that bother them. If you do not end up with an egocentric and inconsiderate child after subjecting them to this, it will be from pure luck.
The German hall (all three major makers) had complete silence inside. So this is also a cultural thing, and a pretty strong one as this happened in Moscow, and most of the workers were Russians of course.
[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/4/18/17168504/restaurants-noise-lev...
However, once volume reaches a certain background level, we have to raise our voices to be understood over the background noise which increases the overall background level which causes others to have to raise their voices over the new background level ever increasing.
For normal restaurants, I can actually have a conversation. But when I go to some club or bar, I need to align my ears carefully and have the speaker talk directly to me, otherwise, I'd have no chance of understanding anything.
In Berlin there are a lot of low-end (as in cheap) Vietnamese and to a lesser extent Thai restaurants that I would call real restaurants. Tend to be pretty quiet in my experience even when they're relatively full.
There are few restaurants I know that allow us to be seated in quiet areas and/or that are much more quiet due to their design, and those are the restaurants that I'll visit often.
I can’t think, can’t hear my wife, and can’t relax and enjoy my meal.
I do not understand why every small restaurant has to have high ceilings with no plenum so the A/C sounds like a jet engine. Surely I’m not the only customer annoyed by this.
But we are also to blame; when we bought our house, we removed some walls to let more light in, and everything is really tight and smooth, and therefore reflects all sound. We got bad acoustics in our home.
We've got a neighbour who works in a sound studio and advised us on some sound absorbing panels, but they don't really fit in our interior anywhere.
Please the eye and punish the ear, seems to be the interior design rule of today.
Can't you just mount them on a wall or ceiling?
Otherwise you can do lots of good by just putting down rugs or hanging woven artwork. Plants work too
My wife hates rugs. We have some plants, but that's clearly not enough.
which works because everybody's on their phones... :-(
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/dining/restaurant-music-p...
Ironically they later tried McCafe iniative to make lingering spaces to try to compete with Starbucks after seeing how many go there for coffee - often taking the form of a nook which fails pretty badly at the task because of the previous decorating. Illustrating quite a few other negative things about the leadership.
The big difference between that and the McD's (or even the Subway down the road) was the food at MAX was far better...! (so I can see why people were hanging around and ordering more)
Wrong. Restaurants are so loud because people are so loud.
My wife and I were at Freeman's in Downtown Manhattan the other day. It was so loud we decided to scream to see if anyone noticed. And since noone seemed to turn their heads, we screamed louder and louder, and literally no one could hear us.
This is an American thing, it doesn't happen in Paris, nor in London, nor in Japan, nor in Mexico.
And that, in fact is what the article is about.
The shift over time appears to be a dwindling respect for people.