ZooChat Cup Match #52: Planckendael vs Zurich (4)

[Giant Panda]

I really don't see that should make a difference, on collection Planckendael is way ahead anyway ! I've seen little to explain why it isn't walking this?!

Because Planckendael is a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type of zoo*. I have nothing against that and it's probably my favourite of Belgium's "Big Three", but it doesn't inspire me. I'm not excited by it.

Zurich, on the other hand, is a zoo whose modus operandi is inspiration. For all your talk of bias, I think a taxonomic competition like this actually puts it at a disadvantage, since the best bits are gestalt exhibits that don't fit neatly into any category. The question then becomes: where would I rather see "other mammals"? What's more memorable? Which gives me something unique.

In my case, at least, I prefer to watch fruit bats pounding over the canopy in Masoala than the standard black rat exhibit in Planckendael's tropical house, or Zurich's coatis snuffling across a vast alpine hillside instead of in Planckendael's peccary-churned enclosure. Semien (hyrax), Pantanal (capybara and giant anteater), and the aforementioned squirrel/parakeet exhibit are all similarly wonderful.

Planckendael is lovely, but it's exhibitry is consistently conventional. Yes, the collection is a bit better, but the experience is much better at Zurich.

*Elephants excepted.

 

[pipaluk]

Because Planckendael is a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type of zoo*. I have nothing against that and it's probably my favourite of Belgium's "Big Three", but it doesn't inspire me. I'm not excited by it.

Zurich, on the other hand, is a zoo whose modus operandi is inspiration. For all your talk of bias, I think a taxonomic competition like this actually puts it at a disadvantage, since the best bits are gestalt exhibits that don't fit neatly into any category. The question then becomes: where would I rather see "other mammals"? What's more memorable? Which gives me something unique.

In my case, at least, I prefer to watch fruit bats pounding over the canopy in Masoala than the standard black rat exhibit in Planckendael's tropical house, or Zurich's coatis snuffling across a vast alpine hillside instead of in Planckendael's peccary-churned enclosure. Semien (hyrax), Himalayas (red panda), and the Pantanal (capybara and giant anteater) are all similarly wonderful.

Planckendael is lovely, but it's exhibitry is consistently conventional. Yes, the collection is a bit better, but the experience is much better at Zurich.

*Elephants excepted.

This argument is fine if people want to vote purely on exhibits ( which they are entitled to obviously) , but exhibits for animals I see time and time again really wont impress me I'm afraid ( Ive seen dozens of Capybara or Coati enclosures ). In the early stages of the competition the question was ... I want to see 'other mammals ' where should I go ? Well for me , the answer is easy, I wouldn't travel all the way to Zurich to see species I could see nearly all of within 50 miles of home , regardless of exhibitry! The species at Planckendael are not so easily seen so I would be much more likely to travel there.

 

[Brum]

I've gone for Planckendael, which is quite an easy decision as I prefer their species line-up and I'm really not fussed about "blow your mind" exhibitry. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Masoala, just not for the fruit bats. Likewise all the other exhibits mentioned above seem very nice and all but Pl has nice (but not too exciting) enclosures with echidna, pademelon, Tasmanian devil and so on which ultimately trumps it.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

but exhibits for animals I see time and time again really wont impress me I'm afraid ( Ive seen dozens of Capybara or Coati enclosures ).

I would have said the same until I saw the Pantanal area.

In the early stages of the competition the question was ... I want to see 'other mammals ' where should I go ? Well for me , the answer is easy, I wouldn't travel all the way to Zurich to see species I could see nearly all of within 50 miles of home , regardless of exhibitry! .

This is very much your loss!

all the other exhibits mentioned above seem very nice and all but Pl has nice (but not too exciting) enclosures with echidna, pademelon, Tasmanian devil and so on which ultimately trumps it.

It's hard to explain, and I don't think pictures do an adequate job either, how much further ahead Zurich's exhibtry is of any other zoo in Europe (that I have seen). The attention to detail is extraordinary and the interpretation and theming are triumphant instead of cringeworthy.

It is, of course, a pity that the species line up for the new Australia development didn't have a little more pizzaz

 

[SabineB]

I am not a particular numbers person, so generally the zoo 'who has more of...' is not a good enough argument. I am in fact very much interested in "how" i get to see certain animals and also, the idea behind it (at least how I perceive it) - which has left me most of the time with voting for the zoo that has less species or is doing something unique.

Which is why Zürich will get my vote here.

 

[sooty mangabey]

A bit of this, a bit of that.

I do want to see unusual species, rare in zoos, and will make a real effort to do so.

At the same time, I very much enjoy seeing old friends again when they are displayed with real panache. A great Capybara exhibit is great, even if it has Capybara in it - but I don’t think, to take an extreme example, I’d be too excited by the Fanaloka at the zoo in Austin, Texas, which appears to be displayed in a rabbit hutch.

That said, is the Pantanal exhibit at Zurich that good, really, @FunkyGibbon? When I saw it I was a little disappointed. It just seemed pretty ordinary. Perhaps I’m being unfair.

And are the Planckendael exhibits as unremarkable as is implied here? I’ve not bene for a few years, but in my mind’s eye they were good: as @Giant Panda suggests, nothing revolutionary, but well done, professional, attractive exhibits....

 

[lintworm]

No, so I'll go to Planckendael to see all those rarities and leave the Zurich lovers to their Red-necked wallaby and capybara!

You cannot minimize Zurich's small mammal collection to wallaby and capybara. Viscacha, NSW koala and Tamandua should interest any zoo nerd...

That said, is the Pantanal exhibit at Zurich that good, really, @FunkyGibbon? When I saw it I was a little disappointed. It just seemed pretty ordinary. Perhaps I’m being unfair.

For a Capybara enclosure it is very well done, but to me it is also not that special.... It is not in the same league as the Ethiopian mountain exhibit for example, but that is also asking for too much... They are still more interesting by far in the way that most Australian fauna is shown, mostly in moderately sized enclosures with a red wall around them. Compare there new Devil exhibit with the same enclosure in Duisburg and then it becomes very boring at once.

One enclosure I particularly liked is the Koala one in Zurich, which makes perfect use of a listed building, but is still aesthetically the nicest Koala enclosure I have seen and even features a live Eucalyptus tree. I also applaud it that they will soon combine them with European rabbits outdoors to get more attention to the invasive species problems in Australia.

 

[antonmuster]

Below are some images of some of Zurich's more remarkable 'other' mammal enclosures to illustrate the corresponding arguments made so far. Something the pictures cannot capture well, is how conducive the enclosures are to its inhabitants displaying active, natural behaviors. The enclosures are more than just picturesque backdrops to the animals displayed, but instead - true to Heini Hediger's legacy, which the zoo imo is successfully carrying forward into the future - they are meticulously designed mimicries of their inhabitants natural environments and territories both visually and behaviorally. Another story the images cannot tell, is how - at least regarding all species concerned in this post - despite the often vast size of the enclosures and ample opportunity to retreat, with a minimum of patience and taking the time to check out all viewpoints into an enclosure, it is virtually always possible to spot and observe the animals.

Hyrax: 'Semien'
together with: gelada
Size: 3'150m2 available to animals
on Zoolex



Rodriguez flying fox: 'Masoala'
together with: more than 50 other vertebrate species
Size: roughly 11'000m2 available to animals, 30m max. height
on Zoolex

Masoala mid-level panorama

• antonmuster
• 10 Apr 2018
• 2

Koala: 'Australia'
together with: rabbits (plus presumably in the future some second, burrowing marsupial)
Size: indoors ca. 100m2 for animals
on the zoo's website
exhibit plan

Australia: Koala indoors panorama (170 deg.)

• antonmuster
• 10 Apr 2018

Indoor savanna enclosure for koala. Can be split into two enclosures. Each half has one live...

 

[antonmuster]

Giant anteater & capybara: 'Pantanal'
together with: tapir, southern screamer
Size: ca. 1'500m2 for animals
exhibit plan (all areas in the map with deadwood trees are connected and part of the giant anteater and capybara enclosure)



Swinhoe's striped squirrels
together with: Derbyan parakeets


agouti: exotarium
together with: motmot, white-faced saki


Plains viscacha: exotarium
together with: burrowing owl


...going through the Zurich gallery I have realized that certain images are missing. There is no image of a giant anteater and hardly any of their large enclosure, no images of the various mice terraria etc. Something to remedy.

 

[pipaluk]

You cannot minimize Zurich's small mammal collection to wallaby and capybara. Viscacha, NSW koala and Tamandua should interest any zoo nerd...

I did acknowledge the Viscacha in another post. In another post I said I wouldn't travel all the way to Zurich to see species I could see easily within 50 miles of home, much as I like Tamandua, they fall into that category, I can see them at 2 local zoos. By contrast, much of Planckendael's impressive list I rarely or never see!

 

[antonmuster]

For comparison, here's what I found in the Planckendael gallery.

Koala



Wombat


Echidna


Wallaby


Kangaroo


Capybara


Mara


Giant anteater


Porcupine


Prevost squirrels and Belanger's tree shrews


Black rat


To be honest, I am quite surprised by how bleak and uninspired these enclosures look. Judging by the comments I had expected more. Personally, I feel Planckendael is nowhere near as close to Zurich on exhibit quality, as Zurich is to Planckendael on diversity or rareties in 'other' mammal species.

 

[LaughingDove]

Plackendael's collection is hardly super-blow-your-mind level amazing. It's no Plzen. Zurich has its one real rarity, and Plackendael just has a couple more. I'm not quite sure why @pipaluk is defending the collection so vehemently.

(and actually, for me personally, if I was choosing to travel to one of those zoos purely for the collection it would still be Zurich for the viscacha since I've been zooing in Australia before so Australian rarities aren't as exciting for me, though that's obviously not the case for most European zoo nerds)

 

[pipaluk]

Plackendael's collection is hardly super-blow-your-mind level amazing. It's no Plzen. Zurich has its one real rarity, and Plackendael just has a couple more. I'm not quite sure why @pipaluk is defending the collection so vehemently.

(and actually, for me personally, if I was choosing to travel to one of those zoos purely for the collection it would still be Zurich for the viscacha since I've been zooing in Australia before so Australian rarities aren't as exciting for me, though that's obviously not the case for most European zoo nerds)

Because in Europe, Dusky Pademelon , Swamp Wallaby, Wombat, Tasmanian Devil , Echidna are not that common, what people can see in Australia should be irrelevant to this competition surely?! The only species of similar rarity Zurich can put up is the Viscacha! Planckendael is ahead on numbers too

 

[LaughingDove]

Because in Europe, Dusky Pademelon , Swamp Wallaby, Wombat, Tasmanian Devil , Echidna are not that common, what people can see in Australia should be irrelevant to this competition surely?! The only species of similar rarity Zurich can put up is the Viscacha! Planckendael is ahead on numbers too

Swamp Wallaby, Dusky Pademelon, and Echidna (the latter only if you ignore the subspecies) are not ultra-rare. Swamp Wallaby in particular is of comparable rarity to some of Zurich's other species like Tamandua.

And you yourself discounted Tamandua from your own considerations because there are zoos near you with them. If you're asking the question of 'which zoo would you visit?' for me, Wombat and Tassie Devil wouldn't be hugely exciting, I'd probably be more excited about the Tamandua personally as the number of Tamanduas that I've seen in my lifetimes is far fewer than wombats or devils.

Plackendael's collection isn't orders of magnitude better than Zurich's, in the same way that a collection like Plzen would be, while Zurich's exhibits are orders of magnitude better than Plackendael's (seemingly - I've not been to either zoo).
If it was something like Plzen v Zurich I would probably have voted for Plzen on the basis of the collection even though Zurich's exhibits are better, but the scale of Plackendael's collection isn't enough (for me) to vote for it over Zurich.

 

[Philipine eagle]

Because in Europe, Dusky Pademelon , Swamp Wallaby, Wombat, Tasmanian Devil , Echidna are not that common, what people can see in Australia should be irrelevant to this competition surely?! The only species of similar rarity Zurich can put up is the Viscacha! Planckendael is ahead on numbers too

True. And as I have visit both zoos very recently, most Zurich exibits are indeed far more better than Planckendael, but i.m.o. the viscacha and parrot/squirrel aviary are not that special. Semian Highlands (Hyrax) and Pampas (Anteater) are excellent, but are mainly designed for other animals. The real disappointment in Planckendael is the rather new Pampas exibit: too small, inspireless and boring. But the capybara exibit is good, the black rat exibit has a two-stored viewing level, the wallaby exibit is fine while the Tasmanian devils have charming enclosures (nothing to compare with the amazing Duisburg enclosure but that zoo is not in play now) and the koala house... well has anyone ever seen a fully convincing koala house?

 

[sooty mangabey]

for me personally, if I was choosing to travel to one of those zoos purely for the collection it would still be Zurich

what people can see in Australia should be irrelevant to this competition surely?!

As @LaughingDove was at pains to point out, his attitude was very much a personal one, and all of us approach zoos, and our preferences for them, with a whole host of different factors shaping our responses. This is all about subjective, personal responses!

Looking at those photographs above, I feel much as one imagines Boris Johnson must have felt on the day after the Brexit vote, wondering what on Earth he had been arguing in favour of. How can I possibly have suggested that Planckendael is better than Zurich? But, in truth, whenever I have been to Planckendael it has been a perfect zoo day; my last two visits to Zurich have been on, first, a day of horrible, bitter cold, and more recently, a bakingly hot late summer when I was forced to buy endless massively expensive bottles of water. Thus, my slight mardiness towards Zurich was formed, for reasons far less rational or fair than those expressed above, by @LaughingDove.

 

[Mehdi]

True. And as I have visit both zoos very recently, most Zurich exibits are indeed far more better than Planckendael, but i.m.o. the viscacha and parrot/squirrel aviary are not that special. Semian Highlands (Hyrax) and Pampas (Anteater) are excellent, but are mainly designed for other animals. The real disappointment in Planckendael is the rather new Pampas exibit: too small, inspireless and boring. But the capybara exibit is good, the black rat exibit has a two-stored viewing level, the wallaby exibit is fine while the Tasmanian devils have charming enclosures (nothing to compare with the amazing Duisburg enclosure but that zoo is not in play now) and the koala house... well has anyone ever seen a fully convincing koala house?

And you have voted for Planckandael, not a bad thing obviously but since you seem to have mixed feelings about it, was it intentional (voting for another reason, mayhaps collection) or just a mistake?

 

[Philipine eagle]

And you have voted for Planckandael, not a bad thing obviously but since you seem to have mixed feelings about it, was it intentional (voting for another reason, mayhaps collection) or just a mistake?

No mistake Like I already mentioned in another match thread, I do prefer collection (numbers, rarities and personal interest in particular species/orders) slightly above exhibitry. And it took me a while to make my choice in this match.

On zoo trips, I generally pay less attention to the 'main attractions', let's say gorilla, elephant, sea lion, ringtailed lemur, etc. unless they're housed in great exibits.
Because I like great exibits. And Zurich has a lot of that.

On the other hand, a zoo with a mediocre collection and no rarities, having great exibits, like f.e. Wildlands: no enthousiam here.

So if the category would be 'great exibits', Zurich would get my vote for certain, because I rank it amongst the top zoos in Europe. Which Planckendael doesn't belong to but they were lucky to compete Zurich in probably the only category they have a chance to beat them.

 

[Mehdi]

Ah perfectly fine then!

 

[TZDugong]

Quick question about one of Zurich's exhibits, is the Capybara exhibit really that good? It looks absolutely beautiful but jugging from the photos by @antonmuster it appears as if the land area is small and made of concrete? I notice a grassy area in the left hand side of the photo, but it would be helpful if someone could tell me just how large it is.