1,000-Person Arena and a 48-Year-Old Pool

In the summer of 2024, two events intersected in Hiroshima. One was the launch of a plan to develop a new arena with a capacity of 10,000 people at the north exit of JR Hiroshima Station. The other was the closure of the Hiroshima Central Park Family Pool, which ended its 48-year history on August 31 — one is a story about the future, while the other is about something that is no longer there.

Junichi Kawai, the Commissioner of the Japan Sports Agency, emphasized the significance of the new arena plan during his visit to Hiroshima, expressing his intention to provide full support, stating it was unique to Hiroshima as it aims to become a “sports kingdom.” This project, expected to involve an investment of several hundred billion yen, is anticipated to attract tourists through professional sports events, concerts, and international competitions, serving as a mechanism to revitalize the local economy.

However, the place where children used to splash in the water has quietly disappeared under the same banner of “sports city development.” When these two facts are placed side by side, one might pause to ponder — who does Hiroshima’s “sports city development” truly benefit?

—

New Arena Plan — Creating a Venue for ‘Viewing’ Sports

The proposed site for the new arena, the north exit area of JR Hiroshima Station, is a prime location linked to the redevelopment of Hiroshima Station. While Hiroshima already has sports facilities like Edion Peace Wing Hiroshima (soccer) and Mazda Stadium (baseball), it has been noted that there is a lack of large indoor arenas. With the rise of the B-League’s Hiroshima Dragonflies, the demand for viewing indoor sports, particularly basketball, has certainly increased.

The “Stadium and Arena Reform” promoted by the Japan Sports Agency aims to transform sports facilities from mere venues into “profitable facilities” that combine dining, commerce, and entertainment. Commissioner Kawai’s visit to Hiroshima is situated precisely within this context. In the vision outlined by the government, Hiroshima is positioned as a candidate for a “successful model.”

The future described in numbers — hundreds of billions of yen in investment, hundreds of thousands of annual visitors, and economic ripple effects on surrounding dining and lodging — is indeed glamorous. However, the “sports” being discussed here fundamentally refers to “viewing sports” and the experience of “buying a ticket and sitting in a seat.” It is not to say that this experience lacks value. Yet, the question remains: who does this mechanism truly benefit?

—

Closure of Family Pool — The Disappearance of a Place for ‘Doing’ Sports

The Hiroshima Central Park Family Pool opened in 1976. Admission fees were just a few hundred yen, even for adults. Equipped with a lazy river, a children’s pool, and a 50-meter pool, it was a summer staple in Hiroshima, bustling with families during the summer vacation.

The direct reason for its closure is the aging of the facility and the rising maintenance costs. Nearly half a century after its opening, significant funds are required to update plumbing and filtration systems. While Hiroshima City is reportedly considering new waterfront facilities as part of the redevelopment plan for Central Park, no specific completion date has been indicated at this time. There are reports of plans to include attractions like water slides, but it remains unclear when, on what scale, and at what cost these will be realized.

What should not be overlooked is the essence of the function that the family pool provided. It was a “public place where children could move their bodies at a low cost without needing a reservation.” While private swimming schools and leisure pools exist, they come with the hurdle of monthly fees and admission charges. A place like the family pool, where one could “drop by,” was an open space for physical activity for children, regardless of income or family circumstances.

After its closure, there are no equivalent facilities in Hiroshima City. This is not merely a matter of “one less pool.” It signifies that a structural option for children to engage in physical activity on a daily basis has been lost.

—

The Background of the Term ‘Playground Refugee’

The closure of the family pool is not an issue confined to Hiroshima. Across the country, closures and reductions of public pools and children’s playgrounds are occurring in succession. According to a survey by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, aging sports facilities in urban parks are becoming a common challenge for municipalities in securing funds for updates. Within limited budgets, municipalities tend to prioritize investments in “profitable facilities.”

In Hiroshima City, the Central Park area is undergoing significant changes following the construction of the soccer stadium (Edion Peace Wing Hiroshima). The commercial development around the stadium and the establishment of event squares are all designed to “attract people and stimulate the economy.” Within this flow, there is a structure that pushes out “daily-use, modest but essential places” like the family pool.

The emergence of the term “playground refugee” among parenting generations is not solely due to the closure of one facility. The removal of playground equipment, the reduction of open schoolyards, and the consolidation of children’s centers — while each may represent small changes individually, when they overlap, the places where children can “move their bodies freely and for free” are undoubtedly decreasing. As a system, the foundation that supports children’s daily physical activity is becoming thinner.

—

The Fault Line Between Two Types of ‘Sports’

The new arena plan and the closure of the family pool. These two initiatives, while both under the banner of “sports city development,” reach entirely different layers.

The new arena promises the experience of watching professional sports, the excitement of large events, and the accompanying economic effects. The beneficiaries are those who can purchase tickets, businesses operating in the vicinity, and players involved in the sports industry.

What the family pool provided was the time for children to jump into the water on a summer afternoon, the shade from which parents could watch from a bench, and a half-day spent for just a few hundred yen. The beneficiaries were ordinary families without special purchasing power.

This is not a matter of which is right or wrong. However, as long as it is labeled “sports city development,” both layers — the economic sphere of “viewing sports” and the living sphere of “doing and playing sports” — must be considered; otherwise, that term will only resonate with one side.

The Japan Sports Agency’s “Stadium and Arena Reform” aims to transform facilities from “cost centers” to “profit centers.” This idea is rational in itself. However, if profitability is demanded from all public sports facilities, those that are “not profitable” — meaning places regularly used by children and the elderly — will be the first to be cut. This fault line is embedded in the very design philosophy of the system.

—

The Question is About the ‘Philosophy of the System’

How Hiroshima City will proceed with the construction of the new arena alongside the redevelopment of waterfront facilities and children’s playgrounds to replace the family pool. Whether specific plans and timelines will be presented will answer this question.

There are three key points to note.

First, the completion timeline and pricing structure of the alternative facilities. How long will the “blank period” between the closure of the family pool and the opening of the new facility last? During that time, how will children’s play areas be secured? Additionally, whether the new facility becomes an attraction-based paid leisure facility or is designed as a public low-cost facility will change the demographics it reaches.

Second, the prioritization within the overall picture of Central Park’s redevelopment. With large investments continuing in the soccer stadium, new arena, and commercial facilities, in what order and at what scale will children’s playgrounds and spaces for citizens to use daily be developed? The structure of budget allocation itself reflects the municipality’s philosophy of “sports city development.”

Third, the process of dialogue with residents. How will the voices of parenting generations and local residents be reflected in the planning stages? Is there a circuit that connects top-down plans with the everyday needs of the community? A system only sustains itself when it incorporates the voices of its users.

—

What Lies Beyond ‘Benefiting’

Creating a large venue and organizing the everyday environment are not opposing forces; they should ideally coexist within the same “city development” framework. However, given that budgets and time are finite, the choice of which to prioritize and at what scale is unavoidable. Within that choice lies the philosophy of the city.

An arena where 10,000 people cheer and a pool where children can jump into the water for a few hundred yen — both are landscapes of a “sports city.” When one remains and the other disappears, for whom does that city become a “sports city”?

The essence of a system is revealed more by what spills over than by the intentions of its designers. — I hope to observe Hiroshima’s choices with a longer perspective.