Your Czech mate's (sometimes) short thoughts about Czech zoos

[HOMIN96]

Well were there yet some other bigger developments under Bobek, outside of these two?

I would say that elephant house does count as majorly his work.

hippos - outside paddock seem to be a bit small. Also, not even tiny bit of a grass.

(on the other hand, it could be pretty easily expanded on the expense of neighboring antelopes)

Hippos do seem to get the shorter end of a stick often, in Prague's case, the gate to the antelope yard does seem to be there so I think they could possibly let them go there, the barriers should be strong enough to hold them...

Also, if we are speaking about over-use of concrete - what do you guys think about Brno?

Funnily enough, short note about Brno will come in my next update

 

[Jana]

Concrete in Prague - some understandable pieces are houses for elephants (probably necessary for such strong animals) and hippos (huge amount of concrete, needed for ponds, but very small usable area for animals at the end). But why did they use so much concrete for parrots, salamanders, also Australia house? It made these building incredible expensive. And at the same time it will be so expensive and problematic to do any larger modification in future and thus it decreases quality of future husbandry.

Standards and experience in animal husbandry is evolving quickly and most houses and smaller enclosures get outdated every 20 years. Yes, large natural outside enclosures, lets say bears or wisents in Chomutov or ibexes in Prague, will work excellently even in 50 or 70 years. But houses age very quickly, what seems adequate today, will bring visitor´s contempt in next generation. It makes zero sense to use durable and expensive material like concrete, unless we talk about large water basins or several storage high buildings. Concrete should be almost verboten in zoos. Architects love concrete because it gives them freedom to express their ideas, but architects should not dictate what and how will be built in zoos. Old good bricks or Ytong can be quickly remodeled, some walls built or broken, new larger windows installed, whole houses repurposed for moderate cost. Also old good wood, if used in expert way, is ideal building material for smaller species. We don´t need that animal houses last centuries, 3 decades is enough, then it will need deep reconstruction either way. Look what Vienna did to its old structures. Or look how quick and painless was demolition of wooden giraffe house in Prague. At the same time, look how long old elephant house is standing empty here, because such huge piece of concrete is almost impossible to be demolished. And remodeling of concrete structures is so expensive that the Prague zoo just doesn´t have funds for Amazonia, despite its generous subsidies from city council that all other Czech zoos can just dream about.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Concrete in Prague - some understandable pieces are houses for elephants (probably necessary for such strong animals) and hippos (huge amount of concrete, needed for ponds, but very small usable area for animals at the end). But why did they use so much concrete for parrots, salamanders, also Australia house? It made these building incredible expensive. And at the same time it will be so expensive and problematic to do any larger modification in future and thus it decreases quality of future husbandry.

Standards and experience in animal husbandry is evolving quickly and most houses and smaller enclosures get outdated every 20 years. Yes, large natural outside enclosures, lets say bears or wisents in Chomutov or ibexes in Prague, will work excellently even in 50 or 70 years. But houses age very quickly, what seems adequate today, will bring visitor´s contempt in next generation. It makes zero sense to use durable and expensive material like concrete, unless we talk about large water basins or several storage high buildings. Concrete should be almost verboten in zoos. Architects love concrete because it gives them freedom to express their ideas, but architects should not dictate what and how will be built in zoos. Old good bricks or Ytong can be quickly remodeled, some walls built or broken, new larger windows installed, whole houses repurposed for moderate cost. Also old good wood, if used in expert way, is ideal building material for smaller species. We don´t need that animal houses last centuries, 3 decades is enough, then it will need deep reconstruction either way. Look what Vienna did to its old structures. Or look how quick and painless was demolition of wooden giraffe house in Prague. At the same time, look how long old elephant house is standing empty here, because such huge piece of concrete is almost impossible to be demolished. And remodeling of concrete structures is so expensive that the Prague zoo just doesn´t have funds for Amazonia, despite its generous subsidies from city council that all other Czech zoos can just dream about.

This argument makes a great deal of sense, and personally I agree with you. It is a logical position from an animal management point of view.
The opposite is usually the most popular though with the public and with people on here. Those exhibits and zoos which get rave reviews, be they in the UK, in Belgium or the US, for example - have mega cost long-loved exhibits. It is not possible to provide the drama and footfall of Paradisio with security panels and cable ties..!!
The notable exception amongst major zoos appears to be Yorkshire Wildlife Park, which has a very agricultural approach and many of its exhibits would struggle to last 3 decades. No matter though, as most will have been ripped down and replaced before then.

 

[Gavialis]

This argument makes a great deal of sense, and personally I agree with you. It is a logical position from an animal management point of view.
The opposite is usually the most popular though with the public and with people on here. Those exhibits and zoos which get rave reviews, be they in the UK, in Belgium or the US, for example - have mega cost long-loved exhibits. It is not possible to provide the drama and footfall of Paradisio with security panels and cable ties..!!
The notable exception amongst major zoos appears to be Yorkshire Wildlife Park, which has a very agricultural approach and many of its exhibits would struggle to last 3 decades. No matter though, as most will have been ripped down and replaced before then.

Ditto here - the amounts that some zoos spend on new exhibits - even in Britain where funding is always scarce - is mind-boggling. It appears many zoos still haven't learnt lessons from London's Casson Pavilion - even Chester, where Mottershead's philosophy was to build cheap and not to build anything to last more than a decade.

I would argue, though, that there are a number of other 'major' zoos who keep a close eye on construction budgets - Cotswold and Highland Wildlife Parks are good examples, as is (though not strictly speaking a UK zoo) Jersey. Personally, I find their exhibits far more satisfying and attractive than the multi-million pound ones at (say) London. (Admittedly, all three are located in picturesque countryside and so do have something of an advantage here.)

 

[Vision]

Concrete in Prague - some understandable pieces are houses for elephants (probably necessary for such strong animals) and hippos (huge amount of concrete, needed for ponds, but very small usable area for animals at the end). But why did they use so much concrete for parrots, salamanders, also Australia house? It made these building incredible expensive. And at the same time it will be so expensive and problematic to do any larger modification in future and thus it decreases quality of future husbandry.

Standards and experience in animal husbandry is evolving quickly and most houses and smaller enclosures get outdated every 20 years. Yes, large natural outside enclosures, lets say bears or wisents in Chomutov or ibexes in Prague, will work excellently even in 50 or 70 years. But houses age very quickly, what seems adequate today, will bring visitor´s contempt in next generation. It makes zero sense to use durable and expensive material like concrete, unless we talk about large water basins or several storage high buildings. Concrete should be almost verboten in zoos. Architects love concrete because it gives them freedom to express their ideas, but architects should not dictate what and how will be built in zoos. Old good bricks or Ytong can be quickly remodeled, some walls built or broken, new larger windows installed, whole houses repurposed for moderate cost. Also old good wood, if used in expert way, is ideal building material for smaller species. We don´t need that animal houses last centuries, 3 decades is enough, then it will need deep reconstruction either way. Look what Vienna did to its old structures. Or look how quick and painless was demolition of wooden giraffe house in Prague. At the same time, look how long old elephant house is standing empty here, because such huge piece of concrete is almost impossible to be demolished. And remodeling of concrete structures is so expensive that the Prague zoo just doesn´t have funds for Amazonia, despite its generous subsidies from city council that all other Czech zoos can just dream about.

I wonder where you get all this from? Coming from an architecture student, here in Belgium at least pre-fabricated concrete slab structures are often roughly estimated generally about 20% cheaper than bricks, much thanks to their lower material cost, extreme flexibility in shape, and the quicker building process (though of course this differs from construction to construction).
Architects don't dictate what and how will be built, they are given assignments, projects, and I believe in Prague Zoo's case also competitions, and they build what people ask them to build - Of course material choices can be made by the designers but if Prague Zoo decides to go with a concrete design that's not the architect's fault but the zoo's. For a vast majority of large buildings, concrete is the most logical and simple solution.

I also disagree with the general statement that for some reason zoos shouldn't build big, impressive buildings - it is exactly those buildings that define zoos, and give them identity and history. Animal welfare should indeed always come first, but I think claiming that all buildings constructed today will be outdated as soon as 20 years from now is wholly unfounded and untrue - And even if it were true, those same structures can later be used for smaller animals, as we are currently seeing with many historic buildings and exhibits in zoos all over the world.

Either way, to get back on topic - Loving all of the short reviews @HOMIN96 ! Czechia has been one of my favourite zoo countries since I first visited in 2016, so it's great to be able to read these well-written reports!

 

[Jana]

If somebody thinks concrete is good choice for zoos, I invite them to visit old closed elephant house in Prague. Empty for 8 years already and the zoo can´t afford to either rebuild it or demolish. It usurps prime area in center of zoo, it looks ugly, it still costs money to keep it.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Ditto here - the amounts that some zoos spend on new exhibits - even in Britain where funding is always scarce - is mind-boggling. It appears many zoos still haven't learnt lessons from London's Casson Pavilion - even Chester, where Mottershead's philosophy was to build cheap and not to build anything to last more than a decade.

I would argue, though, that there are a number of other 'major' zoos who keep a close eye on construction budgets - Cotswold and Highland Wildlife Parks are good examples, as is (though not strictly speaking a UK zoo) Jersey. Personally, I find their exhibits far more satisfying and attractive than the multi-million pound ones at (say) London. (Admittedly, all three are located in picturesque countryside and so do have something of an advantage here.)

Yes absolutely. I have never been to Highland, but some of their construction takes 'agricultural' even further. I dont think it is really fair to include Cotswold in the same category; but their beautiful site does mean that construction can be very 'sensible' (almost conservative) and the Park still have the wow factor.

I wonder where you get all this from? Coming from an architecture student, here in Belgium at least pre-fabricated concrete slab structures are often roughly estimated generally about 20% cheaper than bricks, much thanks to their lower material cost, extreme flexibility in shape, and the quicker building process (though of course this differs from construction to construction).
Architects don't dictate what and how will be built, they are given assignments, projects, and I believe in Prague Zoo's case also competitions, and they build what people ask them to build - Of course material choices can be made by the designers but if Prague Zoo decides to go with a concrete design that's not the architect's fault but the zoo's. For a vast majority of large buildings, concrete is the most logical and simple solution.

I also disagree with the general statement that for some reason zoos shouldn't build big, impressive buildings - it is exactly those buildings that define zoos, and give them identity and history. Animal welfare should indeed always come first, but I think claiming that all buildings constructed today will be outdated as soon as 20 years from now is wholly unfounded and untrue - And even if it were true, those same structures can later be used for smaller animals, as we are currently seeing with many historic buildings and exhibits in zoos all over the world.

Either way, to get back on topic - Loving all of the short reviews @HOMIN96 ! Czechia has been one of my favourite zoo countries since I first visited in 2016, so it's great to be able to read these well-written reports!

I agree with much of this too. Architects are often blamed, but they are paid consultants and their ideas dont have to be commissioned. And yes concrete is very adaptable and often cheaper than brick, blocks or even timber, and often very much cheaper (and more flexible) than the costs and logistical issues involved in sourcing, transporting and installing 'natural' rock.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

If somebody thinks concrete is good choice for zoos, I invite them to visit old closed elephant house in Prague. Empty for 8 years already and the zoo can´t afford to either rebuild it or demolish. It usurps prime area in center of zoo, it looks ugly, it still costs money to keep it.

I'm somehow having trouble picturing whereabouts in the zoo it is, or what it looks like which perhaps gives some indication of how much of an eyesore it actually is.

 

[Vision]

I'm somehow having trouble picturing whereabouts in the zoo it is, or what it looks like which perhaps gives some indication of how much of an eyesore it actually is.

I couldn't quite figure it out on memory either! From some looking through the gallery (Old Elephant & Hippo House- Prague Zoo, July 2013 - ZooChat) I think the building is behind where the playground is located - It seems like the current reptile house is a part of the old elephant building?

 

[HOMIN96]

But why did they use so much concrete for parrots, salamanders, also Australia house?

I will have to partly disagree with you (again )

Well salamander house is meant to be able to resist a flood to a certain level, so it severly limits your choice of building material...

As for the rest:

pre-fabricated concrete slab structures are often roughly estimated generally about 20% cheaper

I pretty much always assumed that concrete is the cheaper option from a certain size of building, so I am glad someone "from industry" was able to confirm that. Although here aren't pre-fabs used much (at least in zoos) and also we are experts on adding "extra costs" during building...

Going back to the Australia/Parrot house, I am not really scared that standards of care will change that much that these houses will need some major changes requiring removal/adding of concrete. At worst you just switch species present and you are good to go...

Either way, to get back on topic - Loving all of the short reviews @HOMIN96 !

Thanks, I am glad you like it and I am even more so glad that it raises discussion as I intended

It seems like the current reptile house is a part of the old elephant building?

Yes it is exactly like that. The old setup was:
• Current SA tapir exhibit - Rhinos
• Playground - Elephants
• Anteaters - Hippos + Elephant male

 

[Batto]

I loved it even in old humble "wooden" times, when there were for example individual ancient small bird cages near the castle that looked like half-collapsed chicken cages overgrown with weed. But when I looked through thick double mesh, there was my first Green oropendola pair, for exemple. No person in sight in 1 kilometer radius, just immaculate park in full bloom and me, this cage before me and black storks at pond behind me.

You perfectly described my first impression of Zlin. When I saw the black storks calmly walk by, I thought I would have to notify the zoo staff. And I still remember the wedding sign next to the ones for flamingos and crocs at the castle.

 

[HOMIN96]

24. 06. and 13. 08. - Zoo Plzen
Last visit: November 2019

You knew this was eventually coming, didn't you?
Plzen is kind of a zoo where it feels like there are huge differences in the quality of keeper teams. Whilst some look like they only do the job to get it done, others are willing to go the extra mile and try to make the lives of the animals as good as they possibly can.

The last big development in Plzen happened in 2010, since then, there were only some smaller additions and upgrades. Something new would be very welcomed, but is the much talked about (and by certain few people even desired) Elephant house an answer? I don't think so...Plzen's strengths always lied elsewhere, so why not play to them? Of course, new capacities for elephants are welcomed as well, but there are many who fear, that maintaining elephant herd will take money away from where they are needed more...

I heard about loads of different development that were at some point thought about...all of them sounds much better than elephants...also something not really talked about but badly needed and much deserved - Chimpanzee house.

We'll see what the future holds, but one thing is certain, Plzen will stay a mainstay for small-mammals and birds and a must-visit place for every enthusiast on his travels through Central Europe.

 

[Jana]

But that planned development for "elephants" in Plzen, if I understood it, should contain much more than elephants. Also gibbons, monkeys, tapirs, snake house, deer, Philippines, New Guinea and Australia exhibits and more. Which means that large part of species now kept in south-east part of the zoo areal, in and around current schimpanzee exhibit, will move out. That would free 1/2 - 1 hectar where a new chimpansee house and corresponding outdoors pens could be constructed.

And what I like and hate about Plzeň is its botanical collection. I like it´s comprehensive nature and nice park architecture. I would wish more glasshouses for tropical species. And I hate it when I start read the signage (latin names of plants) and when I raise my head after 1/2 hour, I realise I have moved just 4 steps ahead. 15.000 plant taxa and majority of them with a signage is simply an overkill.

 

[HOMIN96]

But that planned development for "elephants" in Plzen, if I understood it, should contain much more than elephants. Also gibbons, monkeys, tapirs, snake house, deer, Philippines, New Guinea and Australia exhibits and more.

As far as I know, most of this (all better than the elephants itself as I said) was scrapped or postponed indefinitely, due to cost reduction, even the Elephant house that was supposed to have orangutans, Malayan tapirs, comodo dragons, and some other species, was pretty much cut to elephants only. And yet people from the city council mention complete costs around a billion CZK, which is probably a record in terms of our country. The high costs at least give me hope that it eventually won't be elephants only, but is it positive enough? I (and loads of other people) am very skeptical about the outcome of this, because I feel that if this investment indeed happens and happens with the aforementioned costs, it will put a zoo in very complicated financial situation and stops it from doing any major upgrades for next 15-20 years...

Slight addition I forgot yesterday: I would love to see one of our state zoos to get Pairi Daiza styled ownership and Plzen would be perfect for it, they have the space to develop around the zoo and the zoo itself could be upgraded as well.

 

[HOMIN96]

14. 08. - Zoo Brno
Last visit: 1st May 2020

With heavy rainstorm coming, I had just a limited time (cca hour and a half) to go through it, so I just decided to check mainly on the animal houses as those were still closed as COVID-precaution during my last visit...also there is no need to talk again about hoofstock enclosures as those are pretty good and don't age too much.

A new chimpanzee outdoor exhibit is coming up along nicely although...I think the era of animal pits with concrete (or in this case, mock rock) walls, where you look at the animal below you is long gone and this is being awfully close to it. I know that terrain isn't exactly friendly there, but I feel like it could've been done in a much better way. Other than the chimp exhibit, there is also some aviary being constructed as a part of it, possibly for some smaller monkeys and apparently, there is also a walk-through lemur exhibit being planned there in the future. Speaking of lemur walk-throughs...it's quite fascinating how easily has the zoo given up on solving escapes of black lemurs from their cage, they just put "we know about it, they will come home themselves" sign there and are done with it.

The bird house/exotarium/australia house (whatever floats your boat) is, on the other hand, one of the better (or maybe even the best) things zoo offers. Here you can see that there is a dedicated team of keepers, that tries to exhibit their animals in nice conditions, and the species list is quite nice as well (but I gotta say, mixed exhibit of Western plantain-eater and Long-nosed potoroo was quite peculiar). From a conversation with one of my zookeeper friends there, I know that they have their problems as well, but it is not something they can solve, it happens in pretty much every zoo and visitors won't notice either.

And terrarium...if the bird house fills me with joy, excitement and hope for the zoo's future, the terrarium straight-up murders it...I know that the house is old as hell but still...seeing the comodo dragon in a woeful state, the bare and boring anaconda exhibit that used to be amazing exhibit for caiman lizards, caiman lizards being shifted to the smaller exhibit because of it and not looking good either...undoubtedly some not so good decisions were made here. At least the coral aquariums look good, as well as the aquariums in the bird house, you can really tell that the aquarium guy knows his stuff.

All in all, I feel like Brno has probably the biggest amount of wasted potential from all Czech zoos...and it all comes down to their biggest ongoing struggle - not being able to build new entrance with a bigger parking lot/parking house. Although this issue was partly covered at least for summer now, it is still not good enough. I know that there are issue with land, with people living next to zoo not being exactly excited about the possibility of more cars being there (but to be fair, if you buy/build a house between two of biggest summer attractions in Brno, you should probably expect it a bit) and questionable support and willingness of city council solving this, but still, this issue is known for as long as I am alive and I feel like that is long enough time to actually get it done.

In other developments, the zoo is building winter on-show stable for giraffes. In terms of bigger developments, there is a lot of stuff planned but when/if it happens that is very hard to tell given that all the constructions took at least twice longer than in your average zoo...

 

[Jana]

I agree on wasted potential. But lack of parking space is only part of the problem. Brno is second largest city in the country and the zoo is well accessible by Brno public transport (tram). However I know some families living in Brno and they still prefer to travel to Zlín/Olomouc/Jihlava/Vyškov/Hodonín instead of visiting their own zoo, often didn´t visit ii in two decades. They say the zoo is depressing/boring, going up the hill tiring, other zoos have better visitors amenities and better vibe.

On future investments, I have seen a press article recently, the city council has agreed to finance the new Himalaya part (snow leopard, yak, takin, kiang, blue sheep, Tibetan macaque, vulture). However the skizza published of the new exhibits looked pretty boring and no idea, if this will be a hit with visitors.

 

[Dassie rat]

When I visited the Tourist Information Centre at Brno, I asked for details about the zoo. The lady told me, "It's got lots of animals", but gave me details about the bus to take.
I found the zoo to be a strange mixture. There was an area with 2 old-fashioned enclosures for big cats, but this may have been off the beaten track. The best area was probably the ungulates on the steep hills. The worst was the relatively bare, old-fashioned chimpanzee and associated enclosures.

 

[xmoose]

pits with concrete (or in this case, mock rock)

Yup, when I was asking about Brno and concrete, I hadn´t on my mind old exhibits...
But that high ground (hehe) around exhibit doesn´t seem to me as that bad idea, in case of climbing animals (from visitors point of view)

I am looking forward to Himalayas! It seems nice idea to me, for zoo located on hill. It could be done pretty cheaply (I mean - compared to manatee or polar bear exhibit)a nd I guess that another "boring animal-less gap", not adding to zoo attractivness, will disappear (am I right guessing it should be located around and behind takin and wapiti enclosures?)

 

[HOMIN96]

Forget the zoo reviews, what were the beers like?

@Brum THE TIME HAS COME!

Dvur Kralove beer review special

The brewery in Dvur makes 6 beers with 4 of them being available permanently and the other two are changed depending on season (summer/winter). They are each different type (pilsner lager, dark beer, IPA, APA, wheat beer and ginger beer), with strength ranging from 4 to 6,8% and IBU ranging from 24 to 58,95.

You can either purchase a 1-liter bottle of the beer you like, or the whole set of 5 and they are obviously on tap in some of the zoo's restaurants. As I was driving I had to opt for the bottled one and taste it later. My choices were:

Black Rhino Beer - dark beer, strength 5,8%, IBU 26

Described by the zoo as "top-fermented Coffee Stout, with beautifully dense foam with taste and smell of freshly roasted coffee." I gotta say that the coffee smell and taste were indeed very noticeable (they use Fair Trade coffee from Kenya) and it gave the beer nice and refreshing feeling. However, I can't confirm if that foam is really as advertised, because whenever I poured it into a glass, the foam was pretty much non-existent. All in all, even though I kinda like dark beers, and this didn't really disappoint it isn't something I would probably not buy again.

African Queen Beer - APA, strength 4,2 %, IBU 34

Zoo's description: "As one of the few in Europe, we use "African Queen Hops" from the South African Republic."
In the last couple of months, I became really fond of APA's. It seems like that from all sorts of beer I have tasted so far, they suit me the best and this one was no exception. Very light in terms of feeling after you drink it, good taste with fitting bitterness (although the bitterness isn't really a factor for me), and adequate foam. From those I tasted, this one is my favorite.

White Rhino Beer - pilsner lager, strength 4,4%, IBU 39

Lager is the royal category of beer in Czechia and rightfully so. As the head of Research Institute of Brewing and Malting said in a recent interview: "If I want to see how good the brewery is, I try their lager, that should be Magnum opus of every brewer. If you can do a good lager, you can do everything. Also, it is the best beer, no other type has such perfect balance of tastes, strength, bitterness...no stout or ale can beat that."

So obviously this was something I had to try. And I was very satisfied so I think it is safe to say that Dvur's brewery knows how to do the job This one had the best foam from all 3, the taste was very pleasant, but it felt a bit heavier than the APA.

So all in all, from 3 beers I tasted, in my opinion, 2 were very good and 1 average. My father had also tasted them and he would probably describe them as 1 very good (lager), 1 average (APA) and 1 poor (dark) but it's important to note that he is a very conservative lager drinker

 

[Brum]

About time, don't think I'd have managed to save them for quite as long...

Black Rhino Beer - dark beer, strength 5,8%, IBU 26

Not much of a fan of dark beers and really not into coffee, so this sounds disgusting to me. Each to their own though, at least I know which one to avoid if I find myself in Dvur in the future.

African Queen Beer - APA, strength 4,2 %, IBU 34

White Rhino Beer - pilsner lager, strength 4,4%, IBU 39

These two sound really nice, I'd definitely be trying them. I'm also a sucker for an IPA as well so that would probably be top of my "To Try" list before them.