But is that making zoos into an alternative to theme parks, or is it making them into theme parks?
Down Beside Where The Waters Flow...
- Thread starter sooty mangabey
- Start date
But is that making zoos into an alternative to theme parks, or is it making them into theme parks?
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
That depends on how much of a "purist" you are. For me, as a non-purist, I'm fine with a mixture. I still see Disney's Animal Kingdom as one of the best zoos in the USA, and the Dutch Wildlands as one of Europe's best zoos. Visitors to these zoos still have their time dominated by animals, with that time spiced up by fun rides.
I’m not virulently anti-rides, to be clear, though I think they should be an inconspicuous as possible. Lisbon’s chairlift and Hannover’s boat ride are two that I used and was quite fond of. Roller coasters are a different beast altogether: the moment you have something that people are supposed to scream at the top of their lungs for you’re detracting from the wider ambience of the zoo.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with you mostly (especially on Lisbon and Hannover). But I don't have a problem with the roller coasters IF they are located a ways away from the animals, so no one could complain they are bothering the animals. The coasters at Disney and Sweden's Kolmarden Zoo are this way, and I don't have a problem with them at all. But the coasters at the Sea World parks, Busch Gardens, and especially the old Marine World Africa -- they may be a little bit too close.
But I'd once again give you my favorite quote from a man who was ultra-successful at both entertaining and educating millions for the last 40 years of his life: "I would rather entertain and hope that people learned something than educate people and hope they were entertained."
The point being that if you entertain them, they will come (and spend their money) and then they can also be educated. But if you don't entertain them, then there's no money and no educating.
I have to completely disagree with you and maybe this is partly a cultural thing, but for me roller coaster rides do not belong in zoos, as do other over the top entertainment rides. There are plenty of zoos that do perfectly fine without. Wildlands is until now a complete failure, not only for the majority of zoo nerds, but also for a lot of the visitors. People complain that if they want to got to a theme park, they go to one, but they want a zoo and can hardly find one....
I have nothing against well integrated low key things like chairlifts or boat rides, but these things are not necessary for entertainment and a good zoo will find a way so that the animals will be the stars and give all the necessary entertainment and inspiration.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
Certainly an interesting question for debate.
Also, I'd say that Disney's Animal Kingdom and Sea World are theme parks.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #8
I begin with an apology. As some may be aware, there is a football World Cup going on right now, and this morning England overcame the mighty Sweden to secure a place in the semi-final. I have been on something of a high as a consequence, and hence my feelings about today’s zoo – Lincoln Park – may be artificially raised.
Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago
No zip wires. No public giraffe feeding at extortionate costs. Limited playgrounds. Certainly no rollercoasters (although there is a rather quaint train that goes in a loop near the children’s zoo). And yet here is a zoo that secures 3 million visitors a year, and today was absolutely packed from the moment I arrived (as soon as the football was finished) to the moment I left (10 minutes before the published closing time of 6.30). Of course, the popularity of the place may have something to do with its being free. And its being slap bang in the middle of an enormous city. And, today specifically it may have had something to do with the perfect weather - the overwhelming heat and horrible humidity of recent days has gone into abeyance, and instead it was simply beautifully warm and very sunny. But I also like to think that the popularity of the zoo is a reflection of the interest that people have been seeing interesting animals, displayed interestingly.
I have to say I really liked this place. But then, I would: it’s got a rich historical heritage, of which it is proud and about which it speaks loudly. Its collection is fairly broad, with a particular focus on smaller things. The gardens are beautiful. It is, very much, the sort of zoo I like. I would like to say that the natural comparison is with London, but I fear that to do so is to rather overstate any claims to excellence that London zoo has. So, instead, let’s compare it to Antwerp or Amsterdam.
Of course, it’s not perfect. The lack of outdoor enclosures for a large number of animals, particularly primates, is not good. The area for hoofed animals – a fairly typical American set-up of a central house surrounded by paddocks – looks to be one in which the zoo isn’t really trying very hard (camels and an alpaca, alongside takin, kangaroos,, peccary and zebra). And, while it was great to see so many people there, the crowds did make it quite difficult to see things sometimes (even if 99% of those present was behaving beautifully).
Thank heavens the zoo has maintained its historical buildings, which certainly serve to bring character to the place. I would have loved to have seen the Lion House when it was filled with residents (even though I am sure that it was far from ideal for this purpose). As a piece of architecture, though, it is stunning – and it will certainly be interesting to see how the zoo tries to adapt it.
My favourite exhibit? The Bird House. Another historical structure, with wonderful layout inside, and some superb species. There are about 10 separate exhibits, with the walk-through at the end the clear highlight. I loved it!
The recent things are all pretty good – penguins, polar bears, macaques. The houses from 10 to 20 years ago are fine, but suffer from being just a little bit too tight inside. Interestingly, the monkey house, whilst worthy of the criticism it has received, does at least have enormous space for visitors, meaning that it does not feel oppressively crowded in the way that, for example, the reptile and small mammal house can.
There is something fantastic about just walking in to a zoo, from the surrounding park. It would be interesting to see how many visitors it would get if there were an entry fee. I think it would still get a very good number of people coming, because it is a very good zoo.
I begin with an apology. As some may be aware, there is a football World Cup going on right now, and this morning England overcame the mighty Sweden to secure a place in the semi-final. I have been on something of a high as a consequence, and hence my feelings about today’s zoo – Lincoln Park – may be artificially raised.
Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago
No zip wires. No public giraffe feeding at extortionate costs. Limited playgrounds. Certainly no rollercoasters (although there is a rather quaint train that goes in a loop near the children’s zoo). And yet here is a zoo that secures 3 million visitors a year, and today was absolutely packed from the moment I arrived (as soon as the football was finished) to the moment I left (10 minutes before the published closing time of 6.30). Of course, the popularity of the place may have something to do with its being free. And its being slap bang in the middle of an enormous city. And, today specifically it may have had something to do with the perfect weather - the overwhelming heat and horrible humidity of recent days has gone into abeyance, and instead it was simply beautifully warm and very sunny. But I also like to think that the popularity of the zoo is a reflection of the interest that people have been seeing interesting animals, displayed interestingly.
I have to say I really liked this place. But then, I would: it’s got a rich historical heritage, of which it is proud and about which it speaks loudly. Its collection is fairly broad, with a particular focus on smaller things. The gardens are beautiful. It is, very much, the sort of zoo I like. I would like to say that the natural comparison is with London, but I fear that to do so is to rather overstate any claims to excellence that London zoo has. So, instead, let’s compare it to Antwerp or Amsterdam.
Of course, it’s not perfect. The lack of outdoor enclosures for a large number of animals, particularly primates, is not good. The area for hoofed animals – a fairly typical American set-up of a central house surrounded by paddocks – looks to be one in which the zoo isn’t really trying very hard (camels and an alpaca, alongside takin, kangaroos,, peccary and zebra). And, while it was great to see so many people there, the crowds did make it quite difficult to see things sometimes (even if 99% of those present was behaving beautifully).
Thank heavens the zoo has maintained its historical buildings, which certainly serve to bring character to the place. I would have loved to have seen the Lion House when it was filled with residents (even though I am sure that it was far from ideal for this purpose). As a piece of architecture, though, it is stunning – and it will certainly be interesting to see how the zoo tries to adapt it.
My favourite exhibit? The Bird House. Another historical structure, with wonderful layout inside, and some superb species. There are about 10 separate exhibits, with the walk-through at the end the clear highlight. I loved it!
The recent things are all pretty good – penguins, polar bears, macaques. The houses from 10 to 20 years ago are fine, but suffer from being just a little bit too tight inside. Interestingly, the monkey house, whilst worthy of the criticism it has received, does at least have enormous space for visitors, meaning that it does not feel oppressively crowded in the way that, for example, the reptile and small mammal house can.
There is something fantastic about just walking in to a zoo, from the surrounding park. It would be interesting to see how many visitors it would get if there were an entry fee. I think it would still get a very good number of people coming, because it is a very good zoo.
I visited the Lincoln Park Zoo about 6 years ago and absolutely loved it. The zoo reminded me of the Astor Court area of the zoo, but extrapolated across an entire zoo. I would love to go back as since I visited so much has been constructed.
Also has construction work finally started on the Lion House? I know they were focusing on the new entryway before the lion house construction began. I wonder what species will stay in addition to the lions. I would love to see some smaller species of African cat on the south side of the building. Although I would have rather the zoo keep the tigers instead, given the climate of the region.
Also has construction work finally started on the Lion House? I know they were focusing on the new entryway before the lion house construction began. I wonder what species will stay in addition to the lions. I would love to see some smaller species of African cat on the south side of the building. Although I would have rather the zoo keep the tigers instead, given the climate of the region.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Just to give my thoughts on the debate, above, about the need to “entertain”. Two things. First, whenever Allen comments on this (and he does comment on it quite often!) there seems to be an implicit suggestion that animals, in of themselves, are not entertaining. Hence the need for all the other stuff. This is simply an area where I disagree. Second, if I go to the British Museum, for example, I do not expect to be able to take zip wire to cross the Great Court. If I were to visit MOMA, I would not do so hoping to be able to dress up as Jackson Pollock, and re-enact his art creation. If I went to the beautiful Peak District of northern England, I wouldn’t do so in the hope of being able to ride a rollercoaster (being able to get a slice of authentic Bakewell tart would be more than enough). And yet all of these places do pretty well for visitors – and, furthermore, they seem to be taken a bit more seriously than the average zoo. For as long as zoos do go down the route of zip wires, paid-for giraffe feeding and all that “fun“ they are only ever going to be seen as a good day out rather than anything more serious than that. Is that a problem? I think so (although I accept that others may not!).
(This'll become a trend with your reviews, so apologies in advance).
Did you see the Regenstein African Journey/Pritzker Family Children's Zoo/Regenstein Small Mammal/Reptile House/Kovler Seal Pool? What did you think of African Journey in particular?
The zoo has been slowly removing species from the building including the tigers, jaguars and servals. All indoor exhibits have been closed down and blocked off, the giftshop is no longer open and all that is left are the lions, a few small cat species and a red panda family. Construction will likely officially start next year, and they will hopefully showoff the plans after the new visitor center is complete.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #9
I must begin with an apology. Today’s been quite a day, with two major zoos, the most expensive taxi journey I’ve ever taken, and, later, an hour’s wait to catch a train back into Chicago. Fortunately, a nice bar next to the station revealed that it’s only in zoos where beer costs nearly £10 a go, and a fellow who’s nearing 50 years of age needs to show ID to purchase alcohol.
The Shedd
What an incredible place this is! Professional, stylish, relentlessly interesting, relentlessly surprising. It was, by such a distance as to make the “contest” somewhat undignified, the best aquarium I’ve ever seen. The dolphin show avoided silliness and circus tricks, and was all the better for it. Each of the various galleries was beautifully executed. And how great to see species after species with which I was previously unacquainted. How wonderful it would be to live in Chicago, and to be able to make return visits whenever the fancy took you!
Possibly the most incredible thing, though, were the queues outside when the time came to leave. I’d heard these could get long - but they were something else!
I must begin with an apology. Today’s been quite a day, with two major zoos, the most expensive taxi journey I’ve ever taken, and, later, an hour’s wait to catch a train back into Chicago. Fortunately, a nice bar next to the station revealed that it’s only in zoos where beer costs nearly £10 a go, and a fellow who’s nearing 50 years of age needs to show ID to purchase alcohol.
The Shedd
What an incredible place this is! Professional, stylish, relentlessly interesting, relentlessly surprising. It was, by such a distance as to make the “contest” somewhat undignified, the best aquarium I’ve ever seen. The dolphin show avoided silliness and circus tricks, and was all the better for it. Each of the various galleries was beautifully executed. And how great to see species after species with which I was previously unacquainted. How wonderful it would be to live in Chicago, and to be able to make return visits whenever the fancy took you!
Possibly the most incredible thing, though, were the queues outside when the time came to leave. I’d heard these could get long - but they were something else!
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #9 (part 2)
Brookfield Zoo
The original plan had been to go to Breakfast yesterday, thinking that it would be a definite full day Zoo (Shedd was pre-booked for today, tomorrow will be truncated by the unhappy need to catch a plane home). But then a football match foreshortened yesterday - so I figured I’d do Brookfield twice - this afternoon to start things off, then tomorrow to hoover up what was left. When a cock up (mine!) meant that there wasn’t a train for two hours (!) I decided to catch a taxi. $51 later, I arrived at the zoo. $51! Maybe this put me in a bad frame of mind, but, as I entered the place, my heart sank. Over the past week I’ve seen some beautifully-done entry plazas, setting a wonderful first impression - Cleveland, Toledo, best-of-all Akron. But the north gate at Brookfield opens out onto what looks like a shanty town of stalls, temporary gazebo-like structures and establishments whose sole purpose is to extract dollars from those who have entered the zoo. It was horrible, and spoke not of a zoo with a serious scientific mission.
Did things pick up? In places. The African forest area is wonderful (okapi, giant elephant shrew, pangolin, duiker x2). But the place as a whole - shabby, tired, unappealing. Too many areas where things look ugly: plants not given enough consideration, a panoply of discordant signs, even pathways that looked to crumbling and uncared-for.
I’d like another hour or two there. I rushed the bird houses. The desert thing deserved more time. But, overall, just too unattractive, with so little sense of the aesthetic as to make a visit fail to lift the soul. And Tropic World! Oh my goodness, it’s truly horrible.
So, after 4 hours there today, I won’t be going back tomorrow. I’d like to, but I’d like to go to either Lincoln Park or the Shedd more (and they don’t have transport-related hassles). I really expected to love Brookfield, but I didn’t.
Brookfield Zoo
The original plan had been to go to Breakfast yesterday, thinking that it would be a definite full day Zoo (Shedd was pre-booked for today, tomorrow will be truncated by the unhappy need to catch a plane home). But then a football match foreshortened yesterday - so I figured I’d do Brookfield twice - this afternoon to start things off, then tomorrow to hoover up what was left. When a cock up (mine!) meant that there wasn’t a train for two hours (!) I decided to catch a taxi. $51 later, I arrived at the zoo. $51! Maybe this put me in a bad frame of mind, but, as I entered the place, my heart sank. Over the past week I’ve seen some beautifully-done entry plazas, setting a wonderful first impression - Cleveland, Toledo, best-of-all Akron. But the north gate at Brookfield opens out onto what looks like a shanty town of stalls, temporary gazebo-like structures and establishments whose sole purpose is to extract dollars from those who have entered the zoo. It was horrible, and spoke not of a zoo with a serious scientific mission.
Did things pick up? In places. The African forest area is wonderful (okapi, giant elephant shrew, pangolin, duiker x2). But the place as a whole - shabby, tired, unappealing. Too many areas where things look ugly: plants not given enough consideration, a panoply of discordant signs, even pathways that looked to crumbling and uncared-for.
I’d like another hour or two there. I rushed the bird houses. The desert thing deserved more time. But, overall, just too unattractive, with so little sense of the aesthetic as to make a visit fail to lift the soul. And Tropic World! Oh my goodness, it’s truly horrible.
So, after 4 hours there today, I won’t be going back tomorrow. I’d like to, but I’d like to go to either Lincoln Park or the Shedd more (and they don’t have transport-related hassles). I really expected to love Brookfield, but I didn’t.
Thanks for your reports from Chicago...great stuff and I only wish that your mini-reviews were longer! Shedd Aquarium opened in 1930 and yet inside it is sleek, modern and world-class. I've literally toured 90 different aquariums in my lifetime and Shedd is #1...better than either Monterey Bay or Georgia. Shedd regularly sees 2 million visitors each year and was also the most popular aquarium in the USA for the past few years, although Georgia re-took that crown in 2017 with 2.4 million visitors. Also, the International Zoo Yearbook lists Shedd Aquarium as having approximately 1,500 species...WOW! That makes it the #1 zoological facility on the planet in that category, just ahead of Berlin.
For your final day, if it is not too much of a hassle then I'd recommend going back to Brookfield. It really is a full day zoo with hit-and-miss exhibits but a large collection. There are many interesting buildings, a rich history, and in some ways a European-themed facility with all of the various animal houses. If transportation is an issue to the Chicago suburbs, then hang around town and visit BOTH Shedd and Lincoln Park before you leave the city. Go to Shedd from 9:00-11:30, have lunch and take a taxi down the road to Lincoln Park and spend a couple of hours in that free zoo.
Safe travels home my friend!
For your final day, if it is not too much of a hassle then I'd recommend going back to Brookfield. It really is a full day zoo with hit-and-miss exhibits but a large collection. There are many interesting buildings, a rich history, and in some ways a European-themed facility with all of the various animal houses. If transportation is an issue to the Chicago suburbs, then hang around town and visit BOTH Shedd and Lincoln Park before you leave the city. Go to Shedd from 9:00-11:30, have lunch and take a taxi down the road to Lincoln Park and spend a couple of hours in that free zoo.
Safe travels home my friend!
Sadly, I found myself nodding in agreement with just about everything scooty has written in this post. Brookfield is a shadow of its former self and I made my displeasure with the direction the place has been going very clear in this thread. I empathize with this opinion that Brookfield has become worn down, with much of the zoo looking aged, including the cracks in the pathways, the multiple empty exhibits, the loss of dozens of species, plenty of things rather thrown together. areas that looked disserted such as the top west corner of the zoo, with zebras in a barren paddock across a huge mound of dirt separated of a cracked pathway. It pains me to say this, but the once grand zoological park has fallen on hard times and is need of a major refresh. I remember as a young lad spending hours on end during every visit, but now I am usually far more interested at what's going on at Milwaukee County and Lincoln Park, as they seem to actually be making improvements, while Brookfield remains stagnant.
I can't blame you for not wanting to return, however, it may sound strange to hear this, but I say you should do it. Despite my displeasure, its still a good full day zoo that deserves more than just four hours of your time. Great Bear wilderness, Habitat Africa, Living Coast and Wolf woods are all great, with plenty other things that should hopefully complement them. If you get bored and leave early, head South to the Cosley zoo and/or Willowbrook Wildlife Center, two facilities that only take about an hour each but are well worth your time.
Also, I would be interested if you can elaborate more on Tropic World, as while its a highly flawed exhibit, I would be curious to why it is "truly horrible." Either way, have a good last day in the Midwest and a safe return to Europe, cheers!
Herein lies the mistake. One should never go to a zoo without having gone to breakfast. You’ll be hungry and lacking in energy the whole time.
I recommend going to Brookfield again. Some of the exhibits you didn't mention are the best.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Day #10
Brookfield, again
So, here it is, the final curtain. British Airways will be flying me home shortly. Back to being able to buy a proper cup of tea - albeit, one served by someone who lacks the cheer of the average Midwesterner. My favourite line this week has come from the fellow in the car park booth at The Wilds. “I’m so happy I’ve got to sit on my hands to stop ‘em from clapping” he told me. Which is not something I’ve ever heard from the bored teenagers telling me where to position my car at Colchester.
In the end, Brookfield won out. In part, because I felt I needed to give it another go: no zoo is at its best if you arrive in the afternoon, on an astonishingly busy Sunday, and certainly no zoo is at its best if you arrive having just stumbled out of a taxi costing $51. Maybe it’d all seem better under different circumstances. And in part, because I’d left Lincoln Park and the Shedd thinking that was it. I didn’t want the awkwardness of bumping into someone again five minutes after saying goodbye.
And did Brookfield improve on a second visit? Well, yes, but at the same time the faults remained glaring. Yesterday, I’d, at leaskt, passed through every area bar the echildren’s zoo (and not wanting to pay $3 to see an alpaca, I gave this a swerve again). Today I revisited areas deserving more attention, and had another look at pretty much everything. And yes, some bits are good: the free-flying birds in with the klipspringer are great (even if the klipspringer’s area looks to be tiny). Wombat & echidna - wonderful! Even Tropic World has something. But the points made by @pachyderm pro and @d1am0ndback in this thread,Brookfield Zoo - The Current State of Brookfield Zoo are true: it may seem silly to worry about pathways, but the general tattiness and crumbliness of those at Brookfield are indicative of a zoo which appears to be trapped in a state of ennui.
Brookfield, again
So, here it is, the final curtain. British Airways will be flying me home shortly. Back to being able to buy a proper cup of tea - albeit, one served by someone who lacks the cheer of the average Midwesterner. My favourite line this week has come from the fellow in the car park booth at The Wilds. “I’m so happy I’ve got to sit on my hands to stop ‘em from clapping” he told me. Which is not something I’ve ever heard from the bored teenagers telling me where to position my car at Colchester.
In the end, Brookfield won out. In part, because I felt I needed to give it another go: no zoo is at its best if you arrive in the afternoon, on an astonishingly busy Sunday, and certainly no zoo is at its best if you arrive having just stumbled out of a taxi costing $51. Maybe it’d all seem better under different circumstances. And in part, because I’d left Lincoln Park and the Shedd thinking that was it. I didn’t want the awkwardness of bumping into someone again five minutes after saying goodbye.
And did Brookfield improve on a second visit? Well, yes, but at the same time the faults remained glaring. Yesterday, I’d, at leaskt, passed through every area bar the echildren’s zoo (and not wanting to pay $3 to see an alpaca, I gave this a swerve again). Today I revisited areas deserving more attention, and had another look at pretty much everything. And yes, some bits are good: the free-flying birds in with the klipspringer are great (even if the klipspringer’s area looks to be tiny). Wombat & echidna - wonderful! Even Tropic World has something. But the points made by @pachyderm pro and @d1am0ndback in this thread,Brookfield Zoo - The Current State of Brookfield Zoo are true: it may seem silly to worry about pathways, but the general tattiness and crumbliness of those at Brookfield are indicative of a zoo which appears to be trapped in a state of ennui.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
So, as I await my flight home, a few last reflections (for now). The great Waylon Jennings once sang “from sea to shining sea and coast to coast, somewhere in the middle is the land I love the most” - and he had a point. As I have said on a number of occasions here, this is an area made wonderful by its people. Today, at Brookfield, a docent in her 60s chased after me, desperately trying to give me sun block, such was her concern about my beetroot shade. It’s never happened at Marwell.
Ranking zoos is a dodgy practice, but after a trip like this it is always fun to reflect on favourites - and least liked. But asking myself the question, which of these places would I most like to be picked up and deposited in East Sussex, I think I’d go for the following, excluding the two smaller collections - The Wilds and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History (lovely though each was):
1, Cincinnati Zoo
2. The Shedd Aquarium
3. Lincoln Park Zoo
4. Toledo Zoo
5 =. Cleveland Zoo
5 =. Columbus Zoo
7. Brookfield Zoo
8. Akron Zoo
9. Indianapolis Zoo
This is, of course, no more than a parlour game, and of course I’m going to put Brookfield above Akron, when its got pangolin, gerenuk, wombat et al. But in this particular group of death, it’s hard not to bunch a whole lot of places together.
And while I’m sure I’ll add more to the thread, not least to answer some of the specific points raised, may I end by thanking those who have read and contributed - whether with comment, reflection or advice - to this account.
Ranking zoos is a dodgy practice, but after a trip like this it is always fun to reflect on favourites - and least liked. But asking myself the question, which of these places would I most like to be picked up and deposited in East Sussex, I think I’d go for the following, excluding the two smaller collections - The Wilds and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History (lovely though each was):
1, Cincinnati Zoo
2. The Shedd Aquarium
3. Lincoln Park Zoo
4. Toledo Zoo
5 =. Cleveland Zoo
5 =. Columbus Zoo
7. Brookfield Zoo
8. Akron Zoo
9. Indianapolis Zoo
This is, of course, no more than a parlour game, and of course I’m going to put Brookfield above Akron, when its got pangolin, gerenuk, wombat et al. But in this particular group of death, it’s hard not to bunch a whole lot of places together.
And while I’m sure I’ll add more to the thread, not least to answer some of the specific points raised, may I end by thanking those who have read and contributed - whether with comment, reflection or advice - to this account.
Last edited: