Did the Wilds remind you of the San Diego Zoos Safari Parks Africa tram? It sounds a bit like it.
Down Beside Where The Waters Flow...
- Thread starter sooty mangabey
- Start date
Did the Wilds remind you of the San Diego Zoos Safari Parks Africa tram? It sounds a bit like it.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #5 - Part Two
Akron Zoo
Now, this one was a surprise. Despite the indefatigable efforts of @TigerValley98 to keep this site updated with news of the zoo, I hadn’t really expected such a tremendous place. But it really was tremendous! The total antithesis of The Wilds, in many regards. There, huge enclosures with not so many animals; here, in some cases absolutely tiny enclosures, but loads of animals. I know which version I prefer!
There are dodgy parts here: the tiger, lion and sun bear enclosures are awfully small, but they are due to be replaced. Meanwhile, the enclosures for the Jaguar and snow leopards have no excuses of age for their somewhat limited size. As somebody who believes that space is often overrated, even I blanched, a little, at these.
But what I really liked here was the imagination, and also the real style with which things were done. A marker is put down with a tremendous entrance building – stylish, grand, but not too grand. It shouts loudly of professionalism within. Highlights? Another aviary, following that at Columbus, for local bird species. A great structure, and, again, really good to see some unusual birds in there. The whole of the North American area was done really well, I thought. Having said that, it would have been nice to see some more unusual mammal species as well. I have seen two American badgers today, but sadly both were dead at the side of the road. It would be tremendous to see one in a mainstream zoo. Or how about a fisher? Or a cacomistle? Or even those wonderful grey foxes as seen at Cincinnati?
At risk of sounding obtuse, I think my favourite building here was the old toilet block: there is a wonderful mural thing on the side, and the building itself is rather striking. I hope it remains at the zoo!
Akron Zoo
Now, this one was a surprise. Despite the indefatigable efforts of @TigerValley98 to keep this site updated with news of the zoo, I hadn’t really expected such a tremendous place. But it really was tremendous! The total antithesis of The Wilds, in many regards. There, huge enclosures with not so many animals; here, in some cases absolutely tiny enclosures, but loads of animals. I know which version I prefer!
There are dodgy parts here: the tiger, lion and sun bear enclosures are awfully small, but they are due to be replaced. Meanwhile, the enclosures for the Jaguar and snow leopards have no excuses of age for their somewhat limited size. As somebody who believes that space is often overrated, even I blanched, a little, at these.
But what I really liked here was the imagination, and also the real style with which things were done. A marker is put down with a tremendous entrance building – stylish, grand, but not too grand. It shouts loudly of professionalism within. Highlights? Another aviary, following that at Columbus, for local bird species. A great structure, and, again, really good to see some unusual birds in there. The whole of the North American area was done really well, I thought. Having said that, it would have been nice to see some more unusual mammal species as well. I have seen two American badgers today, but sadly both were dead at the side of the road. It would be tremendous to see one in a mainstream zoo. Or how about a fisher? Or a cacomistle? Or even those wonderful grey foxes as seen at Cincinnati?
At risk of sounding obtuse, I think my favourite building here was the old toilet block: there is a wonderful mural thing on the side, and the building itself is rather striking. I hope it remains at the zoo!
The Wild Prairie restrooms are unique. I hope they will stay in the Tiger Valley renovation.
Akron Zoo | Don Drumm Studios & Gallery | Akron, OH
The jaguar and snow leopard exhibits could be bigger, but they have served their purposes. Five jaguar cubs and seven snow leopard cubs Have been born at the zoo since Legends opened in 2005. Tiger Valley is wonderful compared to the rest of the zoo before all the renovations that began in the 2000s.
Grizzly Ridge did not get any mammals as you mentioned because the emphasis was Ohio, past and present. Animals that that were here and are here now. The zoo previously had a groundhog exhibit, but Clover was not out of her hole much. The zoo had at one point had prairie dogs and ferrets in Wild Prairie, but they left around a decade ago.
I am sure you noticed where Pride of Africa will go. Wild Asia will go where Tiger Valley is located and expand to the undeveloped land to the north. At least, that is what I have figured out with the acreage.
The zoo you saw today is not the zoo that is there twenty-five years ago. The zoo has come a long way since Tiger Valley opened twenty years ago. Every new exhibit area from now on will cause the zoo to expand and the zoo has the land to do so.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
If only! Sadly, not quite so many animals here. It was good, but it wasn’t San Diego good!
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #5 - part 1
I begin with an apology. Yesterday, I inadvertently called Day #4, Day #5. Does this matter? Probably not. But it does to me.
Cleveland Zoo
Well, as debate rages on this site over the quality of San Diego zoo, I can’t see a similar discussion ever taking place about this one. There are some good parts, certainly, and some really good parts, but there are also some really dodgy areas which detract from the zoo as a whole. And some of those areas are so dodgy as to make the recent multi-million dollar spending on elephant and Asian carnivore areas seems somewhat baffling.
Mind you, that elephant area is really nicely done, and if the Asian highlands (as I believe it is called) goes a bit over-the-top with its ethnographic seeming, it is not alone in doing so – and, animal-wise, it is rather nice.
The 1970s building for primates, fish, and cats has received a great deal of criticism here – And in many ways such criticism is fair. However, despite its obvious shortcomings, I have to say I almost quite liked the place. It’s quite Germanic in flavour and it certainly has a bit of character to it – albeit not a very nice character, possibly, the sort that is played by Ray Winstone in a film.
But my most sharply felt loathing would be directed at the rainforest house, which is truly ghastly. It looks like an office block in Milton Keynes, and, in side, has almost no sense at all of a tropical rainforest – the planting is half-hearted, there are no free flying birds, and the whole place is sanitised and fake. The animal areas, meanwhileare just woeful. Box-alike, small, and denying fresh air to species which would benefit from such fresh air. The orangutan exhibit in particular left me feeling thoroughly depressed. Possibly my least favourite zoo house I’ve ever seen.
I begin with an apology. Yesterday, I inadvertently called Day #4, Day #5. Does this matter? Probably not. But it does to me.
Cleveland Zoo
Well, as debate rages on this site over the quality of San Diego zoo, I can’t see a similar discussion ever taking place about this one. There are some good parts, certainly, and some really good parts, but there are also some really dodgy areas which detract from the zoo as a whole. And some of those areas are so dodgy as to make the recent multi-million dollar spending on elephant and Asian carnivore areas seems somewhat baffling.
Mind you, that elephant area is really nicely done, and if the Asian highlands (as I believe it is called) goes a bit over-the-top with its ethnographic seeming, it is not alone in doing so – and, animal-wise, it is rather nice.
The 1970s building for primates, fish, and cats has received a great deal of criticism here – And in many ways such criticism is fair. However, despite its obvious shortcomings, I have to say I almost quite liked the place. It’s quite Germanic in flavour and it certainly has a bit of character to it – albeit not a very nice character, possibly, the sort that is played by Ray Winstone in a film.
But my most sharply felt loathing would be directed at the rainforest house, which is truly ghastly. It looks like an office block in Milton Keynes, and, in side, has almost no sense at all of a tropical rainforest – the planting is half-hearted, there are no free flying birds, and the whole place is sanitised and fake. The animal areas, meanwhileare just woeful. Box-alike, small, and denying fresh air to species which would benefit from such fresh air. The orangutan exhibit in particular left me feeling thoroughly depressed. Possibly my least favourite zoo house I’ve ever seen.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #5 - part 2
Cleveland Museum of Natural History
I haven’t gone over to the dark side, and I’m still worthy of the disdain of @FunkyGibbon, expressed above. But there is a collection of living animals here, and so it won out as a place to visit, in preference to the local aquarium which I guessed – possibly unfairly – would smell of a Sealife Centre.
The animals at the Museum (aside from the stuffed ones) are all local, Ohio species. There is quite a lot squeezed in to a small area, and it is all done rather well. There is a slightly irritating sanctimoniousness about it all – I half expected a staff member to shout “we’re not a zoo – we are a sanctuary“. But several highlights made up for this: I’m not sure I’ve ever seen snowshoe hairs in captivity before; I do like coyotes; there was yet another aviary of local Ohio birds; and (unlike Akron!) this place did have a pair of grey foxes. Was it life changing? No. Am I glad I went? Absolutely.
One last thing, however. The living animal area was pretty packed with visitors; the halls of the usual natural history museum stuff were largely empty. And it cost $17 to get in – considerably more than the zoo which would, likely, entertain visitors for many, many hours more. Where is the balance, the fairness, in that?
Cleveland Museum of Natural History
I haven’t gone over to the dark side, and I’m still worthy of the disdain of @FunkyGibbon, expressed above. But there is a collection of living animals here, and so it won out as a place to visit, in preference to the local aquarium which I guessed – possibly unfairly – would smell of a Sealife Centre.
The animals at the Museum (aside from the stuffed ones) are all local, Ohio species. There is quite a lot squeezed in to a small area, and it is all done rather well. There is a slightly irritating sanctimoniousness about it all – I half expected a staff member to shout “we’re not a zoo – we are a sanctuary“. But several highlights made up for this: I’m not sure I’ve ever seen snowshoe hairs in captivity before; I do like coyotes; there was yet another aviary of local Ohio birds; and (unlike Akron!) this place did have a pair of grey foxes. Was it life changing? No. Am I glad I went? Absolutely.
One last thing, however. The living animal area was pretty packed with visitors; the halls of the usual natural history museum stuff were largely empty. And it cost $17 to get in – considerably more than the zoo which would, likely, entertain visitors for many, many hours more. Where is the balance, the fairness, in that?
CMZ has always seemed to overtheme the visitor side and leave the animal side a bit stale. Asian Highlands does not have rock work you would expect. Akron does have the rock work allowing the snow leopards to climb and hang out actually on the roof of the building. Because of this vertical access in the Akron exhibit, this is why the floor of the exhibit is not as big as you would expect. CMZ’s wooden climbing areas just look out of place.
CMNH will be really nice once all of the renovations are complete. They are really modernizing the museum.
CMNH will be really nice once all of the renovations are complete. They are really modernizing the museum.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Just a side note about Ohio itself. My knowledge of most things arrives through three different sources: zoos (obviously), music and football. As was mentioned above by @CGSwans, Columbus is a city that has a reasonably well-known football (“soccer“) team, so, in my mind, that has given it something of a heightened profile. Ohio has featured in a variety of songs which do not paint it particularly well – in Bruce Springsteen‘s track “Youngstown“ industrial decline is very much the subject, for example. But, zoos aside, it doesn’t really have a high profile as a state. What I was expecting was industry, ugliness, and possibly rather flat and miserable countryside. Instead, what I have seen has been a revelation. The southern half of the state in particular is really rather beautiful, and the various small towns that I have driven through have seemed utterly charming – the other night, staying in the University town of New Concord, I felt myself coming over all Bill Bryson!
Added to this attractiveness is the attractiveness of the people. @Ned above mentioned my seeing people through rose tinted glasses, and I think that is possibly fair enough. However, there is an undeniable friendliness and politeness to people everywhere in the midwest, in my experience, and that is certainly the case here.
One thing that has surprised me has been the ethnicity of some of the zoo visitors I have seen. Certainly, in Columbus, there was a very high proportion of visitors of a South Asian heritage. What this just a coincidence, or does Columbus have a particularly high population of people of such a background? Yesterday, in Cleveland, I don’t think I saw a single visitor who was anything other than white or Afro-Caribbean.
I would say that the only drawback of state is the weather – which has been fairly horrid. Really hot and humid, unpleasantly so, then with torrential rain appearing really suddenly. Most days have been really hot and sweaty with the sound of thunder rumbling around in the sky. It has felt a bit like being in a heavy metal concert – hot, sweaty, loud, and a little unpleasant. I would imagine that spring or autumn might be a rather more pleasant time to visit.
So, in a few hours, I head to my final Ohio zoo, in Toledo (the fourth biggest city in the state with a population of 280,000, I have just been told by my friend Mr Google). Then, through Indiana, and back to Chicago....
Added to this attractiveness is the attractiveness of the people. @Ned above mentioned my seeing people through rose tinted glasses, and I think that is possibly fair enough. However, there is an undeniable friendliness and politeness to people everywhere in the midwest, in my experience, and that is certainly the case here.
One thing that has surprised me has been the ethnicity of some of the zoo visitors I have seen. Certainly, in Columbus, there was a very high proportion of visitors of a South Asian heritage. What this just a coincidence, or does Columbus have a particularly high population of people of such a background? Yesterday, in Cleveland, I don’t think I saw a single visitor who was anything other than white or Afro-Caribbean.
I would say that the only drawback of state is the weather – which has been fairly horrid. Really hot and humid, unpleasantly so, then with torrential rain appearing really suddenly. Most days have been really hot and sweaty with the sound of thunder rumbling around in the sky. It has felt a bit like being in a heavy metal concert – hot, sweaty, loud, and a little unpleasant. I would imagine that spring or autumn might be a rather more pleasant time to visit.
So, in a few hours, I head to my final Ohio zoo, in Toledo (the fourth biggest city in the state with a population of 280,000, I have just been told by my friend Mr Google). Then, through Indiana, and back to Chicago....
Last edited:
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
I know. This was a bit of a thing while I was planning the trip. I could have included a detour to Detroit, but to do so would have meant not seeing the Wilds or Akron. Of course, Detroit is a far more significant zoo than either of those two, and, logically, I should have made the decision to go there. However, I wanted to “complete“ the zoos of Ohio (a dodgy Safari Park and an unexciting-sounding aquarium or two notwithstanding). I think I am glad I made that decision – particularly having enjoyed Akron so much. If it had just been the Wilds that kept me from Detroit, I might have been a little less happy with my decision!From Toledo you’re only an hour’s drive from Arctic Ring of Life and Amphibiville...
Superb, the ZooChat Laureate strikes again!
As someone who's experienced a few heavy metal concerts (and even enjoyed some of them) that's a spot-on description.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #6
I begin with an apology – but this time it is a very specific one to @CGSwans. Last summer, as he trekked through Europe, I thoroughly enjoyed his various reports, except for the occasions when he mentioned his travails trying to watch the team he supports playing some sport that nobody else in the world is interested in. How I rolled my eyes, and dismissed his desire to see the Sydney Sparrowhawks ( or something like that). But now, the tables are turned – and I have spent much of today fretting about the way in which I shall watch England beat Sweden in tomorrow’s World Cup quarter final – kickoff 9 AM Chicago time. I think I’m there – but it has interfered with my day’s zooing. At least I have been able to develop some hitherto absent empathy!
Toledo Zoo
If this zoo were an actor, it would be Tom Hanks. Very nice, occasionally brilliant, but with some very ropey moments as well. Quintessentially American, and impossible to dislike too much despite the presence of a Da Vinci Code level of poverty in one or two areas, it’s not the greatest zoo in the world, but it’s very good, and very worth seeing.
The Da Vinci Code moment comes with the horrible African area – really an unimaginative field, which is almost impossible to see properly because of all the nonsense surrounding it: zip wires and giraffe feeding and all that sort of thing. Very poor. There’s a bit of Turner and Hooch as well: the polar bear exhibit looks horribly dated, even though I think it is relatively modern – lots of mock rock, not a great deal of natural substrate. Columbus wins hands down on this one.
But there is also a Sleepless in Seattle, or a Captain Phillips if you prefer: the presence of several old WPA buildings is fantastic, and they all look really good – whether they are still being used for their original purpose, or have been converted, as is the case with the old carnivore building which now houses a restaurant (but what a pity that said restaurant only serves the most dreadful of a generic fried zoo rubbish).
Very nice birdhouse, impressive aquarium, decent reptile house (and all of these are in the old WPA buildings). The famous hippo underwater viewing is very good indeed, and the elephant Yard is more than half decent. Overall, a very pleasant zoo.
Billboard of the day
This was actually from yesterday, in Cleveland , but I forgot to mention it here: very simple, and straight-to-the-point: “abortion is genocide“. Blimey! One of those moments when, as an English person, I felt very much in another country...
I begin with an apology – but this time it is a very specific one to @CGSwans. Last summer, as he trekked through Europe, I thoroughly enjoyed his various reports, except for the occasions when he mentioned his travails trying to watch the team he supports playing some sport that nobody else in the world is interested in. How I rolled my eyes, and dismissed his desire to see the Sydney Sparrowhawks ( or something like that). But now, the tables are turned – and I have spent much of today fretting about the way in which I shall watch England beat Sweden in tomorrow’s World Cup quarter final – kickoff 9 AM Chicago time. I think I’m there – but it has interfered with my day’s zooing. At least I have been able to develop some hitherto absent empathy!
Toledo Zoo
If this zoo were an actor, it would be Tom Hanks. Very nice, occasionally brilliant, but with some very ropey moments as well. Quintessentially American, and impossible to dislike too much despite the presence of a Da Vinci Code level of poverty in one or two areas, it’s not the greatest zoo in the world, but it’s very good, and very worth seeing.
The Da Vinci Code moment comes with the horrible African area – really an unimaginative field, which is almost impossible to see properly because of all the nonsense surrounding it: zip wires and giraffe feeding and all that sort of thing. Very poor. There’s a bit of Turner and Hooch as well: the polar bear exhibit looks horribly dated, even though I think it is relatively modern – lots of mock rock, not a great deal of natural substrate. Columbus wins hands down on this one.
But there is also a Sleepless in Seattle, or a Captain Phillips if you prefer: the presence of several old WPA buildings is fantastic, and they all look really good – whether they are still being used for their original purpose, or have been converted, as is the case with the old carnivore building which now houses a restaurant (but what a pity that said restaurant only serves the most dreadful of a generic fried zoo rubbish).
Very nice birdhouse, impressive aquarium, decent reptile house (and all of these are in the old WPA buildings). The famous hippo underwater viewing is very good indeed, and the elephant Yard is more than half decent. Overall, a very pleasant zoo.
Billboard of the day
This was actually from yesterday, in Cleveland , but I forgot to mention it here: very simple, and straight-to-the-point: “abortion is genocide“. Blimey! One of those moments when, as an English person, I felt very much in another country...
Last edited:
It’s the Swans. An unusual moniker, perhaps, but they are a bird whose ferocity is much underestimated.
Swans? Aren't they those birds which have a flimsy claim to aggression, but are easily just walked-over if they get in your way?
It’s the Swans. An unusual moniker, perhaps, but they are a bird whose ferocity is much underestimated.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Hey Sooty, I wish I had known you were in my town! I would have loved to show you our Indianapolis Zoo from my perspective. It's a zoo I've visited more than a few hundred times, usually with one or more of our kids (now foster kids) along. You are correct that the Indy Zoo has a "time" problem, in that it just doesn't absorb enough of visitors' time to make them feel the high price was worth it. The snake gallery in the Deserts Building was added to somewhat address this problem. BUT, on the other hand, our Zoo is definitely not a 2-hour zoo! If you did the whole zoo in only 2 hours, then I'd guess you skipped the dolphin show, which is always entertaining, even if a bit overly educational. The central macaws flyover show is also a must-do, and I'm guessing you skipped it too. I would also ponder a guess that you didn't stop to try to pet the sharks in the Waters Building. This alone usually adds over a half hour when I'm at the Zoo with kids. The fact is, the Indy Zoo is very much aimed at children and families with children, and that's a great thing. All of the shows, rides, and petting/feeding opportunities show that. The one must-do ride is the gondola sky ride which circles the highly-rated Orangutan building. Skipped it too, right? There are opportunities to feed the giraffes and 3 types of birds, but the one you shouldn't have skipped was feeding the flamingos. While it's hit-or-miss, if there was one of the orangutans high up on the cables above visitors, you likely would have stopped to spend 10-15 minutes watching him/her. Didn't happen, right? All of this is to say the only reason you could do our Zoo in 2 hours is because you skipped (or missed) many of the experiences which make our Zoo extra special. But I don't blame you, as you were there alone, as a single adult.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
This makes me sound like some sort of weirdo / pervert, singing around children’s playgrounds!
I arrived reasonably late at the Indianapolis zoo, so none of the opportunities you mention were available to me - with the possible exception of the fish-touching, which I would never do out of principle (I’ve no idea whether any research has been done into the impact of such continual touching on the fish featured in such displays, but at the very best it is going to be neutral, and, more likely, it’s going to be somewhat negative). However, even had I arrived earlier at the zoo, most of the things you list simply wouldn’t interest me: why on earth would I want to ride on a “gondola sky ride”? If I did, I would go to a theme park.
Yes, a dolphin show might be interesting to see (especially one that some could regard as being “too“ educational!). But, ultimately (and this is no criticism of you!) you and I regard zoo visits in a totally different light: I think it would be fair to say that you enjoy having “fun“ opportunities available to you at the zoo, whereas I regard animals in themselves as “fun“ and find all the so-called “fun” stuff irritating and naff. Vive la difference!
Didn’t a Swan kill someone in Australia? I remember a sign in Perth saying that.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I only meant that, since you didn't have any children with you, the attractions more aimed at children wouldn't appeal to you as much -- which you tend to confirm.
You are correct that we look for different things in zoos. For me, as a guidebook writer, I'm wanting to see what would appeal to the widest range of visitors, from families with 4 small children to older retired couples. But my other goal has always been to help make zoos a solid holiday/vacation alternative to theme parks. That is why I applaud the addition of all kinds of rides to zoos, knowing they make zoos more appealing to some visitors, particularly children.
I do, however, think you would have enjoyed the macaws flight show. It's breathtaking to see about 20 colorful macaws come flying in all together and land on perches in front of you. This show is done many times each day, on the hour, but the last one is, I believe, at 4pm (16:00), so you may have missed it.