Europe's 100 must see exhibits

[Batto]

To be honest, that’s what I also thought about lied jungle, and I also think the desert dome isn’t gonna cut it. But based on @snowleopard adoration of Kingdoms of the Night (and the species line-up, and the pictures), there might still be one set of exhibits rivalling the Bush.

I guess there’s only way to know @lintworm, we will have to go and see. What a shame…

I have been to the Bush (insert South Park reference here), Masoala Halle and Lied Jungle in person. And I think the description of the latter as mentioned above, i.e. America's precursor of Gondwana Land, i.e. a "jungle mall", is rather fitting.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

This is a hard disagree for me. Not only, are this exhibits unaccepteble from an animal wellfare standpoint, not being a real improvement from the pre war time. But are simply just very ugly. Modernist architecture, espcially in the sense of animal husbandary were a gaint mistake, Being a big part for the bad reputation of zoos today, with them representing a sense of desolation, coldness, isolation, and boredom. With the exeption of the Tropical greenhouse, which, by it nature as large space filled with living plants being enjoyeble to see from the inside, by the fact, that the architecture is hidden. I would enjoy watching the modern idea of the Amusement Park like fake enviroments, which atleast try to be a pleasent experince much more, then even 1 second of these dystopian hellscape, from a post war destain of the old era. Modernist architecture does not care for the wellfare of man nor animal, but only the ego of its architects.

 

[jwer]

Hah @lintworm, you’re smarter than I am

I thought about including the Lubetkin pool, but as far as I know it’s not an animal exhibit anymore, so I thought it wouldn’t qualify. You just tied it all in with whatever Dudley had left and made one big pile of oldskool architectorial exhibitry, which definately belongs in this list

The mention of Rotterdam’s Riviera-hall and Carnivore house makes me expect that these are not separate entries on the list. I had a hard time picking any exhibits from Rotterdam and this makes me fear that you also had a hard time adding something from Rotterdam to yours. For such a grand zoo, it’s a shame.

I suspect the Oceanium will be on it, but I can’t get myself to put it on my list yet

 

[KevinB]

This is a hard disagree for me. Not only, are this exhibits unaccepteble from an animal wellfare standpoint, not being a real improvement from the pre war time. But are simply just very ugly. Modernist architecture, espcially in the sense of animal husbandary were a gaint mistake, Being a big part for the bad reputation of zoos today, with them representing a sense of desolation, coldness, isolation, and boredom. With the exeption of the Tropical greenhouse, which, by it nature as large space filled with living plants being enjoyeble to see from the inside, by the fact, that the architecture is hidden. I would enjoy watching the modern idea of the Amusement Park like fake enviroments, which atleast try to be a pleasent experince much more, then even 1 second of these dystopian hellscape, from a post war destain of the old era. Modernist architecture does not care for the wellfare of man nor animal, but only the ego of its architects.

As someone who generally really does not like the coldness and emptiness of much of modern(ist) architecture and doesn't care for concrete buildings like the ones at Dudley or Rotterdam, I generally agree with this. But while not overlooking the crappy past of these exhibits, one also can't overlook how these buildings and exhibits have been adapted and are used today. I don't think we should just get rid of all them.

 

[jwer]

This is a hard disagree for me. Not only, are this exhibits unaccepteble from an animal wellfare standpoint, not being a real improvement from the pre war time. But are simply just very ugly. Modernist architecture, espcially in the sense of animal husbandary were a gaint mistake, Being a big part for the bad reputation of zoos today, with them representing a sense of desolation, coldness, isolation, and boredom. With the exeption of the Tropical greenhouse, which, by it nature as large space filled with living plants being enjoyeble to see from the inside, by the fact, that the architecture is hidden. I would enjoy watching the modern idea of the Amusement Park like fake enviroments, which atleast try to be a pleasent experince much more, then even 1 second of these dystopian hellscape, from a post war destain of the old era. Modernist architecture does not care for the wellfare of man nor animal, but only the ego of its architects.

I was once a complete architectural novice, and did not appreciate old buildings. Specially hated those old concrete monstrosities, and I wouldn’t have blinked an eye if those buildings in Dudley or London had been destroyed.

Than I married a woman who studied History of Arts and specialised on architecture and as always, knowledge proofed key.

You can only appreciate something if you know the ideas behind it, the era it was created in, the rarity of it and how hard it was to create. For the exact same reason I bounced around Pairi Daiza after seeing a Spix’ macaw, she would bounce around Dudley for these exhibits.

If these buildings/exhibits are used for an animal it’s inadequate for, than that’s a shame and should be changed. But you can’t blame the building and I don’t mind these buildings are on this list, just for their architectonial value. They represent an era that for the most part is now lost. Perhaps it’s time to embrace what’s left?

 

[Mr Gharial]

14. Burgers’ Bush

This is really a hall where one has to look for the animals, as there are only a few enclosures dotted around. With some patience and spotting skills you could spend hours here, and one should as this exhibit only shows it’s secrets after a lot of patience.

Some absolutely shameless self-promotion here:
I made guides for Burgers' Bush' free-roaming animals and where to find them.
I've been using them myself and it really encourages you to look into every corner.
Some other people I gave them to also mentioned that it really makes you notice the bush more, instead of just wandering around aimlessly



Quick edit: chaco chacalaca is no longer kept and I forgot to remove it

 

[ParathePineapple]

I have been to the Bush (insert South Park reference here), Masoala Halle and Lied Jungle in person. And I think the description of the latter as mentioned above, i.e. America's precursor of Gondwana Land, i.e. a "jungle mall", is rather fitting.

Agreed Lied Jungle is quite overrated compared to other indoor rainforests in my opinion. Also after looking at pictures of Gondwanaland I will agree that they definitely have similarities although Gondwanaland Looks nicer in my opinion.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

Agreed Lied Jungle is quite overrated compared to other indoor rainforests in my opinion. Also after looking at pictures of Gondwanaland I will agree that they definitely have similarities although Gondwanaland Looks nicer in my opinion.

The main problem about Lied Jungle are the inside exhibits. Many of them are pretty catastropic for such a new and modern exhibits. Like the tapirs. They live in such a smal area, it feels more like a road side zoo in quality.

 

[birdsandbats]

The main problem about Lied Jungle are the inside exhibits. Many of them are pretty catastropic for such a new and modern exhibits. Like the tapirs. They live in such a smal area, it feels more like a road side zoo in quality.

The tapir exhibit really isn't that bad now that their land area access has been expanded. I can't think of any really bad exhibits in the Lied Jungle now, although I've only seen the canopy areas as the lower floors was closed on both my visits.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

The tapir exhibit really isn't that bad now that their land area access has been expanded. I can't think of any really bad exhibits in the Lied Jungle now, although I've only seen the canopy areas as the lower floors was closed on both my visits.

I was talking about the modern situation. I know that in the past they didn't even had acces to that area. But even with enlarged exhibit it still way to smal. If it would be in a outdor exhibit, people would be outraged, it gets only excused because it is indoors

 

[lintworm]

This is a hard disagree for me. Not only, are this exhibits unaccepteble from an animal wellfare standpoint, not being a real improvement from the pre war time. But are simply just very ugly. Modernist architecture, espcially in the sense of animal husbandary were a gaint mistake, Being a big part for the bad reputation of zoos today, with them representing a sense of desolation, coldness, isolation, and boredom. With the exeption of the Tropical greenhouse, which, by it nature as large space filled with living plants being enjoyeble to see from the inside, by the fact, that the architecture is hidden. I would enjoy watching the modern idea of the Amusement Park like fake enviroments, which atleast try to be a pleasent experince much more, then even 1 second of these dystopian hellscape, from a post war destain of the old era. Modernist architecture does not care for the wellfare of man nor animal, but only the ego of its architects.

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, it is a perception. Many of your criticisms can also apply to exhibits of postmodernist, Hagenbeckian, naturalistic or Victorian design. The style itself doesn't make it outdated, though especially in Germany there are quite a number of zoos with bad concrete heavy remnants of the pasts, so I think I can see where your sentiment comes from. These early modern designs where quite novel in that they put their focus on putting the animals centre, in a way they could be viewed well by visitors. This is naturally something we now find outdated, but good elements of these concrete heavy designs are still widely retained (more on that shortly). With modifications and a change of species, these enclosures aren't necessarily bad and can be quite good.

Hah @lintworm, you’re smarter than I am

I thought about including the Lubetkin pool, but as far as I know it’s not an animal exhibit anymore, so I thought it wouldn’t qualify. You just tied it all in with whatever Dudley had left and made one big pile of oldskool architectorial exhibitry, which definately belongs in this list

The mention of Rotterdam’s Riviera-hall and Carnivore house makes me expect that these are not separate entries on the list. I had a hard time picking any exhibits from Rotterdam and this makes me fear that you also had a hard time adding something from Rotterdam to yours. For such a grand zoo, it’s a shame.

I suspect the Oceanium will be on it, but I can’t get myself to put it on my list yet

The Oceanium would have been one of the first exhibits to enter the list, if they would have stuck to the original floor plan, with all its modifications it is less of a clear-cut case.

There have been quite a number of good zoos that are astoundingly consistent in their nice exhibits, but lack anything stellar, in some cases I was able to sneak something on the list, but their are multiple great zoos without any exhibits on this list...

The tapir exhibit really isn't that bad now that their land area access has been expanded. I can't think of any really bad exhibits in the Lied Jungle now, although I've only seen the canopy areas as the lower floors was closed on both my visits.

I think we have a different concept of bad, but even with an expanded land area, it still looks pretty mediocre....

 

[KevinB]

With regards to indoor large(r) mammal exhibit, personally I find it noteworthy that one of the biggest ways Burgers' Bush has changed since its early days is by the removal of the large mammal exhibits. The manatees were moved to a much larger pool in the very impressive Mangrove ecodisplay (one that I very much expect to see show up in this thread at some point) and the capybaras left Burgers' Zoo entirely, now leaving that area to the turtles, fish and birds.

One could perhaps argue that Burgers' Bush now kind of lacks a large(r) species that is iconic or popular with or would truly capture the attention the general public - if you don't count the hornbills as such. Not that Burgers' Zoo in my opinion always make the right decisions in these matters, but I think that the removal of the capybaras was much more understandable than that of the bighorn sheep from the Desert.

 

[snowleopard]

There have been quite a number of good zoos that are astoundingly consistent in their nice exhibits, but lack anything stellar, in some cases I was able to sneak something on the list, but their are multiple great zoos without any exhibits on this list.

I agree with your statement and it makes for an interesting discussion. When I visited GaiaZOO on my big European zoo trek in the summer of 2019, I called it a "superb zoological park" and I mentioned that the zoo had won awards in the Netherlands for its beauty. The Taiga, Limburg, Savanna and Rainforest biomes at GaiaZOO are all excellent, and I'm not sure that the zoo has a single poor exhibit anywhere. However, I don't expect a single representative enclosure from the zoo to make your Top 100 list.

Blijdorp Zoo, that great establishment in Rotterdam, has already been mentioned in this thread and it also might lack an exhibit that makes the Top 100 list. I loved my 7 hours at this zoo, with its combination of historic architecture and modern-day immersive enclosures. I spent 45 minutes inside the Oceanium and in my opinion that's long enough to be considered for a stand-alone aquarium anywhere else. Maybe other possibilities for a Top 100 exhibits list could be the new Gelada complex, or the iconic Giraffe House, or the amazing indoor Okapi facility. I loved my day at Blijdorp and consider it a world-class zoo, but is that enough for the establishment to show up on this thread? Only time will tell.

Lastly, I offer up the example of ZOOM in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. A million people a year file through the wide pathways to experience the Alaskan, African and Asian zones. I think that the entire zoo is less than 20 years old and so the quality of exhibits is extremely impressive. The whole Alaskan section is in some ways brilliant, especially the Moose habitat with its big pool. The California Sea Lion pool is magnificent, with its impressive rockwork and underwater tunnel. The whole zoo is great, but it isn't always beloved by zoo nerds and I am doubtful whether anything from ZOOM will make the Top 100 list.

There are many other examples of great zoos such as GaiaZOO, Blijdorp and ZOOM, that are remarkably consistent and yet perhaps none of them will show up on @lintworm's list. I really do think that if 100 zoo nerds each made a list of top exhibits, then none of the lists would be alike and that's what makes this thread unique.

 

[Shirokuma]

This is a hard disagree for me. Not only, are this exhibits unaccepteble from an animal wellfare standpoint, not being a real improvement from the pre war time. But are simply just very ugly. Modernist architecture, espcially in the sense of animal husbandary were a gaint mistake, Being a big part for the bad reputation of zoos today, with them representing a sense of desolation, coldness, isolation, and boredom.

I really do think that if 100 zoo nerds each made a list of top exhibits, then none of the lists would be alike and that's what makes this thread unique.

I think it's worth us reminding ourselves that this isn't a thread of favourite or top exhibits. Some might be "best" whilst others are chosen for being particularly good examples of their kind - which might not be good but still significant:

I have picked 100 different exhibits from across the continent, all of which I think are great exhibits or do a fantastic job in showing a particular kind of design, theme or theming.

With “must see” I do not mean “best”, that is even more a subjective term. As with zoos themselves I think it is a pointless exercise in determining what is the best exhibit, though it makes for entertaining discussions. Naturally there are good and bad exhibits and some of the exhibits I deem must see, are certainly not great for their inhabitants. That said, I will use the term “best” from time to time, when I think an enclosure is a best example of a certain type.

 

[lintworm]

Lewa savanne
Zoo Zurich, Switzerland
Opened: 2019
Size: 5.6 hectares
Inhabitants: 15 species including Reticulated giraffe, southern white rhino, impala, meerkat, spotted hyena and grey parrot

An important part in many large modern zoo projects is world building and few zoos are better at creating authentic looking exhibits than Zurich. Too often one sees faux-African areas with an overabundance of Afrikaans and tribal references. Lewa is different; being based on an existing Kenyan reserve, partly funded by the zoo, it does a great job in replicating Kenyan elements throughout the exhibit. This goes further than the quality of the mock rock (which is high), but includes some buildings and signage which are extremely close to the real thing. Attention to detail is key, Kenyans do indeed drink Tusker beer, and even though most visitors will never have been to Kenya, even they will recognize that the quality. It is a shame that the species line-up is far from authentic, but that could be adapted more easily than theming.

@antonmuster

@antonmuster

@Gil

@Gil

@Gil

Similar exhibits: none, I don't know any African savanna that comes close in authenticity

 

[xmoose]

Holy sh**, that second picture! For one moment I really though it is from Africa
Is there somewhere complete spec. list?

 

[Philipine eagle]

Holy sh**, that second picture! For one moment I really though it is from Africa
Is there somewhere complete spec. list?

Lewa Savanne | Zoo Zürich and go to 'Tiere'

 

[Fallax]

Lewa savanne
Zoo Zurich, Switzerland
Opened: 2019
Size: 5.6 hectares
Inhabitants: 15 species including Reticulated giraffe, southern white rhino, impala, meerkat, spotted hyena and grey parrot

An important part in many large modern zoo projects is world building and few zoos are better at creating authentic looking exhibits than Zurich. Too often one sees faux-African areas with an overabundance of Afrikaans and tribal references. Lewa is different; being based on an existing Kenyan reserve, partly funded by the zoo, it does a great job in replicating Kenyan elements throughout the exhibit. This goes further than the quality of the mock rock (which is high), but includes some buildings and signage which are extremely close to the real thing. Attention to detail is key, Kenyans do indeed drink Tusker beer, and even though most visitors will never have been to Kenya, even they will recognize that the quality. It is a shame that the species line-up is far from authentic, but that could be adapted more easily than theming.

@antonmuster

@antonmuster

@Gil

@Gil

@Gil

Similar exhibits: none, I don't know any African savanna that comes close in authenticity

It's a shame I missed seeing this one in person as I visited a few months before its completion. I will have to make my way back to Zurich to see it at some point.

 

[lintworm]

17. Gibbon cage
Wilhelma, Stuttgart, Germany
Opened: 1973
Size: 100 square metres
Inhabitants: Lar gibbon

This bold piece of architecture was both a perfect representation of its time, as well as far ahead of it. Situated on a steep slope this was the perfect location for a tall cage with lots of concrete for an arboreal species such as gibbons. What makes this cage unique is that there is two-level viewing: A large bridge has been built for perfect viewing at gibbon level high above the ground. Its interior is still very much unchanged from the 1970s, but does offer its inhabitants a lot of climbing options, arguably more so than several modern “naturalistic” islands. Apart from a lack of privacy (except an indoor enclosure that is always accessible), this exhibit has held up remarkably well. That is rather the exception when compared to all the other concrete-heavy mammal enclosures that were built en-masse in the 1970s and 1980s.

@lintworm

@lintworm

@lintworm

Similar exhibits: another older gibbon cage of different design has also held up very well at Zoo Saarbruecken, Germany.

@wstefan

@wstefan

@wstefan

 

[jwer]

I now fully appreciate the architecture of the building, but as a gibbon exhibit it’s a bit too brutal for my liking…

The one at Saarbrucken isn’t architecturally half as interesting, but seems to offer much more for an ape in size and natural substrate/surfaces…

I would have appreciated the exhibit in Stuttgart more if it had been turned into a small greenhouse with one or two callithricids and perhaps agouti or armadillo’s on the floorlevel.

Still, very interesting building indeed…