The Pickleball Pickle part two of two

Historical Context and The Argument Against Pickleball

Our neighborhood association voted to allow pickleball on the tennis courts behind our house, and paid to have the courts painted for the "new" sport.

We didn't know the game, and had no opinion, until it began to be played, and those of us living "on" the courts came to find it an irritant, at best. We tried to work with the pickleball players, other residents of our association, to tone down the noise. We researched the issue and found a whole lot of citations when searching "pickleball noise". It turned out that many homeowner associations, particularly retirement communities, have grappled with the issue.

And, our attempts to work with the players came to naught. They put on sound-absorbing racquet covers, but only for the 8 to 9 a.m. time slot, taking them off for their second hour because they were too heavy. We asked if they would play starting at 9 a.m., but they didn't want to because the courts lose the shade about 10 a.m. and they didn't want to play in the sun. We asked them to use "quiet" balls, but they didn't like the way those behaved.

And then they started using a leaf blower at 7:30 a.m. to dry the courts.

So, out of frustration, we decided to ask the Board to ban the game.

This was not a lightly taken decision. We know we live on the courts, which were in the process of being built when we moved in. We are staunch believers in public use of common property. We helped draft the Common Areas Acceptable Use Policy for the association several years back. We're public school people. We believe in the common good.

But we also believe in neighborliness, and compromise, and working through problems in a collaborative fashion.

So we did some research and presented to the Board what we'd found on April 16, 2019. Although mention was made in the minutes that we had spoken about the issue, none of the following information was made a part of the minutes:

Our first point was that the sound of pickleball play is very different from tennis. This article from the Spendiarian and Willis Acoustics and Noise Control (S&W) business lays out the technical backdrop. Our theory of action was that abatement or attenuation of the sound would provide some relief. They (S&W) called for a 12 db reduction as being a reasonable target.

From their article:

ANSI S12.9 Part 4 gives criteria for assigning adjustment factors to a variety of impulsive sounds. Sounds produced by many impact processes are classified as ‘highly impulsive’ and assigned a 12 dB adjustment. Although not specifically enumerated in definition 3.4.1 of the standard, experience has shown that pickleball paddle impacts should be adjusted as highly impulsive sounds in order to set appropriate performance goals for abatement treatments. Inadequate abatement treatment may lead to ongoing complaints, strained relations with neighbors, legal action, the need for continued involvement on the part of authorities, additional retrofitting, and possibly demolition costs to improve the abatement later.

If one needs further technical detail, there is an S&W report generated for Sun Lakes HOA in AZ which is very comprehensive.

So, to demonstrate to the Board what we were experiencing, Linda took iPhone video of tennis, and of pickleball, from exactly the same spot on our deck, at the same time of day, with similar wind and weather conditions. We then had the sound evaluated via an amplitude and loudness analysis. We presented this graphic to the board:

As can be seen (in the two grey graphs, below the two multi-colored graphs, above) the "resting", no-hit backgroound loudness was very comparable between the two samples.

The measured difference between pickleball and tennis hits was 15 decibels, and the pitch difference was about 600 Hz. And even though they are not exactly the same measurement (sound pressure level db for the S&W study vs amplitude db for the SB Hills study), the amplitude analysis differential of 15 db here is in the ballpark of the S&W call for a 12 db adjustment. (see the lumenlearning article)

Our conclusion was that the pickleball was louder, and more high-pitched.

We also played the videos for the board, albeit with an iPhone so the sound was not as robust as it could have been, but we thought it was illustrative of our amplitude analysis.

The pickleball video is here, The tennis video is here. Our audio analyst, James Hecker (2015 BA Cum Laude, Columbia College Chicago, Audio Arts and Acoustics), isolated one "hit" (paddle or racquet on ball) from each clip and used those for the amplitude/loudness comparison. The software used for the comparison is available on request.

We researched "distance from sound event" and found an article that recommended a minimum distance from courts to homes of 500 feet, where no sound abatement practices were put into place. Sadly, we've lost that reference, but there's another that provides some distance guidelines:

Site Planning Considerations for Pickleball

Based on our experience working with pickleball facilities, courts located within 350 feet of residential structures often require abatement. Courts located within 150 feet require careful abatement design to avoid complaints.

( https://www.acousticalnoise.com/noise-control/why-are-your-pickleball-courts-receiving-complaints-from-neighbors/ )

Note: our house is totally within 200 feet of the center of the courts.

Below find the Google maps shots we produced and shared with the board, with the 500 foot recommendation in mind:

(note: our house is dead center, between the two courts, and is marked with a blue icon in the first map. It is wholly within 200 feet of the middle of the courts.)

The research noted in the minutes of the Aug. 20, 2019 meeting by a Board member, the "Acoustiblok study", supports our argument. To wit:

With no sound curtain, readings ranged from 64.2 – 71.8 decibels for an average of 68 decibels. Through the Acoustifence sound curtain, the meter readings were between 54.7 – 59.2 decibels for an average reading of 56.7 decibels. The report concluded that an 11.3 decibel reduction in sound was achieved. This represents more than a 50 percent reduction in sound as perceived by the human ear by nearby homeowners. That reduction in sound takes the pickleball noise from being annoying to someone to being just barely perceptible, the report conclusion stated. The report also recommended that the Acoustifence product be installed on the inside of the pickleball court if the fence posts are outside the court. The report went on to say that homeowners near the Country Roads RV Village pickleball courts who had the most complaints and lived closest to the courts reported a significant reduction in sound level from having the Acoustifence material up. He said that his wife often does not realize that they are playing on the court. At times, ambient noise significantly exceeded paddle noise.

(bold added for emphasis, above)

( https://www.acoustiblok.com/2013/04/08/pickleball-court-reduced-noise/ )

The Board member's comments at the meeting compared the 68 db referred to in the article, to a general db scale referred to as the "Yale study", promoting the inference that 68 db was acceptable. As the excerpt above reflects, 68 db is "annoying", whereas the 11.3 db reduction by using the product provides a sound that is "just barely perceptible". This is why we, as residents adjacent to the courts, are arguing for noise abatement on the part of the pickleball players, if not an outright ban on pickleball.

Also, it should be noted that the 11.3 db reduction is referred to as "more than a 50 percent reduction in sound as perceived by the human ear...". This is because decibel scales are logarithmic (non-linear).

We are now in the process of reaching out to the pickleball players for a meeting with the homeowners to try and come to some compromise on the issues. Hopefully, after the holidays, we'll meet and come to some sort of mutually acceptable resolution.