[chimpansteve]

I guess it depends. There's been a major issue in the UK for a while regarding quite a few very iconic, decades old, live music venues. Back in the day they were in less salubrious areas of town so no one really cared, but now they're prime property with very expensive flats being put up all around them.

Many of the new residents never even do so much as even visit the area before buying them, and then immediately (and sadly often successfully) put in noise complaints attempting to get the venues shut down, despite the already strict licensing laws (curfew at 10.30 at the absolute latest, no outside drinking etc).

[TulliusCicero]

That's the kind of situation where I think both sides are kinda right. I see what you're getting at here, but from the other side, it's reasonable for people to be bothered by loud noise where they live. If it was gonna be a problem, the real answer is that the government shouldn't have permitted housing right next to places that are gonna stay loud. Or maybe mandated stricter soundproofing requirements for flats.

[trollbridge]

Except there’s always been housing around these music venues.

The problem is the housing went from affordable housing for working class people to “investments” for rich people.

[TulliusCicero]

In either case, people have a right to reasonable peace and quiet where they live. That this wasn't addressed when the neighborhood was more blue collar doesn't make it okay once it's not.