For many young people, spaces like this are among the few places to gather, build confidence and feel a sense of belonging, but only if people want to spend time in them.
When we later took our own kids, it was hard not to notice how much it had changed, and how that shaped the experience.
Debate over the future of the pool has been going on for years now.
Recent community discussion has brought renewed attention to the future of the Whanganui East Pool.
This is alongside broader questions about how shared spaces and services are sustained.
While the Splash Centre is an important facility, it is not always accessible or affordable for all families, nor does it replace the value of a low-cost neighbourhood pool.
How services are structured determines who can use them.
Centralisation reshapes access, participation, who benefits and how those impacts are shared.
Neighbourhood facilities are essential and contribute in less visible ways by supporting nearby businesses and neighbourhood vitality.
Volunteer-led models are often presented as a solution, yet they rely on people having the time and resources to take on significant responsibilities.
This is increasingly difficult amid cost-of-living pressures, work demands and caregiving, and access to public services may depend on who has the capacity to contribute.
While willingness to help remains strong, people are now more likely to engage in roles that are flexible, meaningful and time-limited.
When volunteer roles resemble ongoing operational work or substitute for paid positions, they become unsustainable.
It raises the question of which roles should be freely given, and which should be paid.
Public facilities are funded collectively to ensure equitable access.
Relying on volunteers risks shifting more responsibility onto individuals.
We’ve seen this before.
When the council voted to close the Rotokawau Virginia Lake aviary in 2024 it was later taken on by the Friends of the Aviary Trust.
But the transfer of ownership stalled because of struggles with fundraising, the commitment of taking on staff, and a year later the council did a u-turn, voting to retain ownership.
Volunteer-led models should complement, not replace, public services.
Many organisations are already facing funding instability and difficulty retaining staff, limiting their ability to support volunteer-led models.
Important equity considerations follow.
Sustaining a public pool requires time and financial stability – resources not equally available, especially to low-income households and many working families.
If access to public services becomes linked to volunteer capacity, there is a risk of a two-tier system, where access is shaped not by need, but by who can afford to contribute unpaid labour.
Significant investment has gone into planning and consultation regarding the Whanganui East Pool, including feasibility work and a citizens’ assembly – revealing how much time and resource is absorbed by decision-making before outcomes are delivered.
When time and funding are tied up in process, less is available to sustain services, with more shifted on to communities.
Community reactions to council spending decisions, such as the recent debate around a new logo, reflect this tension.
It is not just about cost, but about what is prioritised when core facilities face uncertainty.
For many, identity lives not in a graphic, but in shared spaces where connection and belonging are experienced.
Imagine if, instead, systems had enabled a local design competition – drawing on Whanganui’s identity as a Unesco City of Design – to create something community-shaped as well as cost-conscious.
There is also a cost to inaction. When facilities close or become less accessible, the loss is not just financial, but social, affecting connection, wellbeing and participation.
A more balanced approach sits between the extremes. Councils retain responsibility for funding, compliance, and long-term sustainability, while communities are supported to contribute in flexible, achievable ways.
This frames volunteering as a complement to public services rather than a substitute, enabling shared responsibility: community energy alongside public investment and accountability.
Ultimately, this is not about choosing between volunteers and public services, but how to balance them.
Rest and belonging should not depend on people’s capacity, and public services should not depend on sacrifice, yet we are increasingly relying on both.
The question is no longer whether communities will step up, but how much more they can carry.
