What are some zoos that have improved WITHOUT expanding?

[Hvedekorn]

Slightly inspired by the thread about the most overrated zoos:

When Zoochatters talk about zoos that have become much better or at least more interesting in recent years, it usually seems to be zoos that have expanded their area instead of tearing down old exhibits to build new ones - Chester with Islands, Rostock with Darwineum, Pairi Daiza with almost everything (okay, I know PD is kind of controversial, but it sure seems to have a more impressing feel than back when it was only a bird park) etc.

On the other hand, many zoos that haven't expanded, but haven't remained completely stagnant either, are often mentioned as having gone downhill because of a loss of (rare) species, too many empty areas etc. - for example London, Edinburgh, (in my own opinion) Ree Park etc.

What are some zoos that haven't expanded their area and haven't necessarily have gained more (rare) species, but still have improved considerably during the last decade or so?

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I would say Bronx. 2009 is when they were hit with massive budget cuts, forcing them to close down entire sections of the zoo-- including the skyline, the nocturnal house, an entire trail, and a section of African Plains-- and slash their collection size massively. 2012 then saw the closing of the Monkey House, a staple of the zoo since Astor Court opened in 1900 following the opening of the zoo in 1899. The zoo remained great imo but very stagnant for years, with several exhibits desperately needing refurbishment. I think it was 2014 when they finally started turning things around again. Since then they have renovated the second floor of World of Birds, completely renovated the Children's Zoo, renovated the Zoo Center for Komodo Dragons, Aldabra Giant Tortoises, and other smaller reptiles, refurbished most of the enclosures in World of Reptiles, the Mouse House, and JungleWorld, added brand new enclosures across the zoo, and brought in/moved on-show a whole slew of new species (which kind of goes against your question I guess). They've yet to begin any major new exhibits due to the New York Aquarium taking up those funds, but they have plans and they certainly have been improving.

Beardsley Zoo would be a smaller but still good example as well. The zoo has the space to expand, but so far all of their announced developments are taking place within the current grounds. A few years ago they opened a brand new South American exhibit focusing on grassland species. This past year saw the opening of a brand new Red Panda exhibit. Currently a spider monkey enclosure is being added on to the rainforest building, and the entire New England farmyard area is being redeveloped. Soon a brand new Amur Tiger exhibit will begin construction. They're also set to begin an Andes exhibit whenever the state finally gives them the grant money they were approved for.

~Thylo

 

[zoogiraffe]

Slightly inspired by the thread about the most overrated zoos:

When Zoochatters talk about zoos that have become much better or at least more interesting in recent years, it usually seems to be zoos that have expanded their area instead of tearing down old exhibits to build new ones - Chester with Islands, Rostock with Darwineum, Pairi Daiza with almost everything (okay, I know PD is kind of controversial, but it sure seems to have a more impressing feel than back when it was only a bird park) etc.

On the other hand, many zoos that haven't expanded, but haven't remained completely stagnant either, are often mentioned as having gone downhill because of a loss of (rare) species, too many empty areas etc. - for example London, Edinburgh, (in my own opinion) Ree Park etc.

What are some zoos that haven't expanded their area and haven't necessarily have gained more (rare) species, but still have improved considerably during the last decade or so?

I think its important to point out that nothing was knocked down on the Chester Islands project as it was virgin ground,never previosly used by the zoo.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Over a slightly longer timespan (for a given value of slightly) I think one of the biggest examples here in the UK is Highland Wildlife Park, which is now miles and miles away from the position (both in terms of collection, enclosure quality and footfall) it found itself in during the late 1980s when I first visited as a small child.

Compare these two exhibits :

With the exhibit which is now present at the same location in the collection:

It is worth noting, incidentally, that if memory serves me correctly the current snow leopard exhibit actually covers what was about 4 or 5 exhibits in 1989, not merely the two above.

 

[Luca Bronzi]

Zoo di Napoli in Italy.
Some years ago it was awful,with horrible cages for tigers and areas for bears and elephants.
Now,although there is much work to do,the zoo has one of the best exhibit for tigers in Europe and good areas for Siamangs,Savanna animals,De Brazza monkeys exc.
Unfortunately there are some bad enclosures,like the Lion's or the Coatis' one,but it improved a lot

 

[birdsandbats]

Milwaukee County Zoo is only just starting its renovations and it's already better.

 

[Hvedekorn]

I think its important to point out that nothing was knocked down on the Chester Islands project as it was virgin ground,never previosly used by the zoo.

Yeah, that's what I meant. It's easier to be satisfied with a new development if it doesn't replace an old exhibit you had attached nostalgic feelings to (or genuinely thought was better). Satisfaction with zoos that discard and draw seems to be a somewhat rarer beast.

and brought in/moved on-show a whole slew of new species (which kind of goes against your question I guess).

It isn't directly against my question, it's just that zoos usually lose some species to make more space for the remaining when they modernize without expanding. 2014, huh? Looks like I was just a little bit too early for the big turning point. It was still a pretty damn good zoo in 2013, though.

 

[antonmuster]

What are some zoos that haven't expanded their area and haven't necessarily have gained more (rare) species, but still have improved considerably during the last decade or so?

I would say Vienna:

left image: sloth // right image: organg utan

left image: dwarf mongoose and hornbill // right image: bird house

left and right image: monkey house

left and right image: polar bears



...compared to 10 to 15 years ago:






Another zoo that has objectively improved a lot through 'inwards' development is Basel. Having said that, it has over the last 20 years arguably also been outranked by its formerly less prestigious neighbor Zurich, which did have the opportunity to expand and nearly doubled its acreage with mostly excellent new developments. Due to this, Basel might not be quite the example you are looking for.

 

[Black Footed Beast]

While loosing quite a few animals, I feel Lincoln Park Zoos quality has heavily improved from when I first visited as a kid

 

[Daktari JG]

St Louis has essentially been land locked since its opening in 1910. They have acquired 14 acres close to the zoo, albeit across the highway, and they have acquired a several hundred acre parcel in North St Louis county, but neither of those has as yet been turned into anything concrete. Since about 1968 virtually every part of the zoo (with the exception of the red rock/hoof stock area) has had a significant makeover.

 

[pipaluk]

Just one word sums up the answer for the UK, a zoo that improves its collection every year, whilst most in the UK diminish - HAMERTON!

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Just one word sums up the answer for the UK, a zoo that improves its collection every year, whilst most in the UK diminish - HAMERTON!

Haven't Hamerton been building new exhibits on lands previously owned but untouched?

~Thylo

 

[pipaluk]

Haven't Hamerton been building new exhibits on lands previously owned but untouched?

~Thylo

Most of the new exhibits are on land that had other exhibits on them previously I think and on empty spaces within the perimeter of the existing zoo eg Tayra, Oncilla, rusty spotted cat, Australian area, new tiger exhibits, binturong /otter exhibit, Lynx

 

[RedTycooner103]

St Louis has essentially been land locked since its opening in 1910. They have acquired 14 acres close to the zoo, albeit across the highway, and they have acquired a several hundred acre parcel in North St Louis county, but neither of those has as yet been turned into anything concrete. Since about 1968 virtually every part of the zoo (with the exception of the red rock/hoof stock area) has had a significant makeover.

St. Louis actually tripled the size of their giraffe exhibit as of last year. While I haven't seen it in person as of yet I've noticed the increase while viewing a satellite image on Google maps.
* I use the maps for help with my ZT2 builds

 

[Coelacanth18]

St. Louis actually tripled the size of their giraffe exhibit as of last year. While I haven't seen it in person as of yet I've noticed the increase while viewing a satellite image on Google maps.
* I use the maps for help with my ZT2 builds

Wow, that's great to see! The giraffe yard was pretty small. I wonder when the last time the zoo made any major changes to Red Rocks was; it would surprise me if it was the first major change they've done since the 1930's, but I suppose it's possible.

 

[TZDugong]

I think that San Diego is a good example of this. San Diego's new exhibits such as Africa Rocks and Elephant Odyssey (as well as the upcoming children's zoo renovation) have been built over previous, older exhibits and the zoo hasn't expanded in quite a while.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I think that San Diego is a good example of this. San Diego's new exhibits such as Africa Rocks and Elephant Odyssey (as well as the upcoming children's zoo renovation) have been built over previous, older exhibits and the zoo hasn't expanded in quite a while.

Yeah but we're talking about good new exhibits

Just kidding, both Elephant Odyssey and Africa Rocks are ok. I suppose they are somewhat of an improvement over what was there before enclosure-wise, though I doubt you'll find anybody who'd argue that the collection hasn't suffered as a result.

~Thylo

 

[TZDugong]

Yeah but we're talking about good new exhibits

Just kidding, both Elephant Odyssey and Africa Rocks are ok. I suppose they are somewhat of an improvement over what was there before enclosure-wise, though I doubt you'll find anybody who'd argue that the collection hasn't suffered as a result.

~Thylo

I would argue Africa Rocks is a very good exhibit, although I can see how some wouldn’t love it. Elephant Odyssey is an interesting case, there are some very good exhibits (Condor, all the reptile enclosures), and barring the big cat exhibits, all the enclosures are decent but EO is just overwhelmingly ugly (those fake trees ) and it detracts from the experience a lot. As for the collection, I’m sure it has been downgraded with these newer exhibits, but there still are som nice rarities in these sections like Bateleur Eagles, Hamadryas Baboons And California Condors.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I would argue Africa Rocks is a very good exhibit, although I can see how some wouldn’t love it. Elephant Odyssey is an interesting case, there are some very good exhibits (Condor, all the reptile enclosures), and barring the big cat exhibits, all the enclosures are decent but EO is just overwhelmingly ugly (those fake trees ) and it detracts from the experience a lot. As for the collection, I’m sure it has been downgraded with these newer exhibits, but there still are som nice rarities in these sections like Bateleur Eagles, Hamadryas Baboons And California Condors.

I'd argue that AR is an ok exhibit. I'm really not a huge fan of tacky mock rock, though. The aviary is great, though, as are some of the other individual enclosures. The Gelada enclosure strikes me as a poor rip off of Bronx's Baboon Reserve. EO does vary more wildly in terms of enclosure quality. As you mentioned, the condor and herp enclosures are great, and some of the hoofstock yards are too. The Pronghorn and big cat enclosures are pretty bad, though. The elephant yard is decent at best but I really don't approve of the mixing of the two species. I do agree, though, the collection is still spectacular even if it isn't what it used to be.

~Thylo

 

[TZDugong]

I'd argue that AR is an ok exhibit. I'm really not a huge fan of tacky mock rock, though. The aviary is great, though, as are some of the other individual enclosures. The Gelada enclosure strikes me as a poor rip off of Bronx's Baboon Reserve. EO does vary more wildly in terms of enclosure quality. As you mentioned, the condor and herp enclosures are great, and some of the hoofstock yards are too. The Pronghorn and big cat enclosures are pretty bad, though. The elephant yard is decent at best but I really don't approve of the mixing of the two species. I do agree, though, the collection is still spectacular even if it isn't what it used to be.

~Thylo

I don’t really have a problem with mock-rock, and while it can be a bit overbearing in AR, I thought it was generally better than your average zoo mock-rock. I don’t really see the similarities between San Diego’s and the Bronx’s Baboon exhibits, Bronx is obviously a lot better, but I thought San Diego has a pretty decent exhibit. And I completely concur with what you said about EO, it’s definitely hit or miss.