Aircraft Noise Concerns in Hamilton Cast Doubt on Olympic Village Plans

Hamilton’s proposed Olympic village is under scrutiny as concerns mount over aircraft noise potentially affecting competitors’ performance during the 2032 Brisbane Games.


Read: Private Sector Proposes $6-Billion Northshore Hamilton Olympic Precinct


The Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) has warned that noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 decibels could disrupt athletes’ preparations and tarnish Brisbane’s global reputation.

olympic village
Photo credit: Queensland Investment Council/ q2032.au

In a submission to the government’s 100-day review of Games infrastructure, BFPCA described the decision to situate the Olympic village in Northshore Hamilton as deeply problematic. The location, which lies near the end of Brisbane Airport’s legacy runway, is considered one of the city’s worst areas for aircraft noise pollution.

Health Risks Associated with Aircraft Noise

The BFPCA submission indicated that chronic exposure to noise levels between 70 and 90 decibels is associated with well-documented health issues, such as disrupted sleep, elevated stress, and cardiovascular strain. The group suggested that this could jeopardise athletes’ well-being and harm Brisbane’s global image.

olympic village
Photo credit: TY Foo/Google Maps

“The escalation of night-time noise pollution in Brisbane has led to severe health consequences for affected communities. Chronic exposure to aircraft noise has been linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, mental health issues, and impaired cognitive development in children,” the group stated.

The Alliance also noted that Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) had previously recommended imposing covenants on residential developments near the airport, acknowledging that noise levels between 60 and 70 decibels are unsuitable for residential use.

Legacy or Liability?

The 2032 Games have been promoted as a transformative opportunity for Brisbane, but BFPCA cautioned against using the event as a justification for fast-tracking major infrastructure projects. Among their concerns is the proposed third airport terminal, which they argued is being advanced under the guise of Games legacy planning without adequate community consultation or thorough assessment of long-term impacts.

“The Brisbane 2032 Games must not be a vehicle for fast-tracking poorly considered infrastructure projects. Past failures, such as the New Parallel Runway, highlight the need for rigorous evidence-based assessment and genuine community engagement to prevent harm,” they said.

olympic village
Photo credit: Penka Andonova/Google Maps

On the other hand, BAC defended the proposed terminal, stating that population growth and increasing travel demand were the primary factors driving the project. They clarified that the terminal’s construction was not solely tied to the Olympics and emphasised the need for additional capacity by the early 2030s.

Fears Over Emerging Technologies

BFPCA also raised concerns about the urban air mobility strategy, which involves introducing drones, air taxis, and verti-ports. These technologies are expected to increase significantly as part of the 2032 Games legacy but may exacerbate noise pollution. The frequent take-offs, landings, and hovering associated with these technologies could result in chronic noise exposure between 50 and 70 decibels.

The Alliance referenced World Health Organisation findings, which classify such noise levels as potentially harmful when experienced over long periods. They also used their submission to advocate for banning lead-based aviation fuel, citing its environmental and health impacts.

Global Standards and Local Accountability

The BFPCA’s concerns underscore a broader tension between Brisbane’s ambition to host a world-class Olympic Games and the challenge of managing growth sustainably. While the 2032 Olympics promise significant transformative potential, critics argue that these benefits must not come at the expense of community well-being or the city’s liveability.


Read: Transforming Hamilton: Northshore Vision 2050 to Redefine Brisbane’s Future


With the government’s 100-day review underway, the proposed Hamilton Olympic village has become a focal point in debates about planning priorities, public health, and Brisbane’s future as an Olympic host city.

Published 17-January-2025

Northshore Vision 2050: Brisbane’s Olympic Aspiration Faces Mixed Reviews

Brisbane’s plan for a world-class Olympic stadium has sparked discussion among residents, pitting visionary dreams against practical concerns. The Northshore Vision 2050, a $6 billion proposal to solve the city’s 2032 Olympic Games stadium dilemma, has sharply divided public opinion. 


Read: Private Sector Proposes $6bn Northshore Hamilton Precinct to Solve 2032 Olympic Crisis


The $6 billion proposal, which its proponents claim won’t cost taxpayers an extra cent, is the brainchild of the Brisbane Design Alliance. This powerhouse team brings together local and global expertise from firms such as Buchan, HKS, NRA Collaborative, Aurecon, and Nikken Sekkei, in collaboration with project development partners Cenfield MXD Limited.

Photo credit: Brisbane Design Alliance

At the heart of the plan is a dramatic stadium that would serve as the centrepiece for the 2032 Olympic Games. The proposed venue would be complemented by an adjacent aquatic centre, wave pool, and a vibrant retail and hospitality zone. 

Photo credit: Brisbane Design Alliance

The precinct would also include a hotel overlooking the venue, a 2500-apartment athletes’ village, and pedestrian walkways along the river, creating a comprehensive Olympic experience.

The vision extends beyond the Games themselves, with the Brisbane Design Alliance aiming to create a lasting legacy that would cement Brisbane’s status as a global city. By developing world-class infrastructure, the project seeks to benefit future generations long after the Olympic flame has been extinguished.

Public Reaction

Photo credit: Brisbane Design Alliance

As with any project of this magnitude, the proposal has sparked mixed reactions among Brisbane residents and observers. Some view it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put the city on the world map, praising the unique design and its potential to create a landmark destination.

One resident expressed concern that a 60,000-seat stadium was insufficient, pointing out that Melbourne had constructed the 100,000-seat MCG half a century ago.

A critic argued against the project, citing concerns about “homelessness” and “existing debt” as reasons why the city couldn’t afford such an ambitious plan.

In contrast, a supporter praised the proposal’s uniqueness, suggesting that Queenslanders should endorse it and emphasising the need to begin work promptly, given the eight-year timeline before the Olympics.


Read: Northshore Hamilton Set to Transform with Futuristic 2032 Olympics Transport Plans


The debate surrounding the Northshore Vision 2050 reflects the broader challenges faced by cities hosting major sporting events like the Olympics. 

As Brisbane prepares for its moment in the global spotlight, the coming months and years will likely see intense discussions about the merits of this ambitious proposal. Whether the Northshore Vision 2050 becomes a reality or not, it has already succeeded in igniting a conversation about Brisbane’s future and its aspirations on the world stage.

Published 19-August-2024