17. Gibbon cage
Wilhelma, Stuttgart, Germany
Opened: 1973
Size: 100 square metres
Inhabitants: Lar gibbon
Definitely the only exhibit from that general area of Wilhelma which one could describe as "good" or "acceptable" in any fashion now
17. Gibbon cage
Wilhelma, Stuttgart, Germany
Opened: 1973
Size: 100 square metres
Inhabitants: Lar gibbon
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. Unfortunately there are no photos of the gibbon cage of Zoo Saarbruecken, Germany, in the gallery, so here is a link:
Gibbon
Sorry I just can't agree to that. There are much better ways to provide gibbons with climbing opportunities than this. there are more naturalistic exhibit with more trees inside. Not saying artificial is bad for gibbons, but it would be better if the ladders are actually hang from the trees and it is just a way for gibbons to go from one tree to another.
Also, more greenery definitely help my eyes. From the side the exhibit looks like a plinko machine.
If this was a top 100 of architectural zoo structures, it would be on my list.
But here and now I prefer the Saarbrucken cage: it's bigger and the rocky background gives it a far more natural appearance. I think the Stuttgart two level view is great for the visitors but a bit daunting for the gibbons.
This is not a thread about the best exhibit for any given species, I can think of quite a number of gibbon exhibits that are clearly superior from the gibbon point of view. But only including "naturalistic" enclosures would be unfair to European zoo history and make this list quite boring.
This brutalist style is however one of the defining features of European zoos 50 years ago and this is one of the better and boldest examples still in use today (and without many modifications still houses the species it was designed for!). I generally also prefer naturalistic exhibits, but I am really drawn to the architecture of this cage and it is certainly a unique design.
But whether keeping a lot of these brutalist primate houses and exhibits (other not too dissimilar examples in German zoos are also still around) in existence or whether they should be continued to be used for primates largely unchanged, is another matter.
I know, I'm more referring to TLD's post.This is not a thread about the best exhibit for any given species, I can think of quite a number of gibbon exhibits that are clearly superior from the gibbon point of view. But only including "naturalistic" enclosures would be unfair to European zoo history and make this list quite boring.
This brutalist style is however one of the defining features of European zoos 50 years ago and this is one of the better and boldest examples still in use today (and without many modifications still houses the species it was designed for!). I generally also prefer naturalistic exhibits, but I am really drawn to the architecture of this cage and it is certainly a unique design.
Sorry I just can't agree to that. There are much better ways to provide gibbons with climbing opportunities than this. there are more naturalistic exhibit with more trees inside. Not saying artificial is bad for gibbons, but it would be better if the ladders are actually hang from the trees and it is just a way for gibbons to go from one tree to another.
Also, more greenery definitely help my eyes. From the side the exhibit looks like a plinko machine.
I know, I'm more referring to TLD's post.
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
I find (cultural) theming an interesting choice of justification for including 'Lewa' in this list. Personally, I think the domestic yak and cashmere goats enclosure at Zurich might be even a tad better in this department.
I'm really enjoying this thread. What stands out as I follow along is that many of the exhibits highlighted thus far, some of which are representative of important European zoo trends, really have no analogue in North America. Some of this is understandable -- after all, American zoos invariably post-date the 19th century "authentic exotic" architectural trend. Most also don't have centuries-old houses on the premises, though the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and National Zoos all do and largely squander them!
The really interesting contrast is when it comes to the modernist poured concrete Tecton stuff and just-featured gibbon cage. In the US you do get a fair number of 1960s-70s concrete-heavy zoo buildings with swooping ramps and the like (Bronx's World of Birds, Minnesota's and Toronto's larger buildings, the Baltimore/New England/Seattle Aquaria), but the architecture doesn't really play a part in the animal spaces themselves. The only exception I can think of was the former limited popularity of the somewhat abstract "concrete ice floe" exhibit style for polar bears/pinnipeds/penguins, but I'm not sure there are any examples of that type still in use in North America.
I do think American zoos could learn from the greater diversity of exhibit seen in Europe. Something like Cotswold's Walled Garden -- a pleasant space with an eclectic mix of species -- would be especially worth replicating rather than yet another of the same loosely defined geographic zones. In fact, I think some aspects of this contribute greatly to the charm of San Diego Zoo, where there are still some trails with somewhat random mixes of species in a pleasant (subtropical) garden setting.
But also here there are lots of examples of where heritage is neglected.
I think it simply boils down to question if heritage buildings can be meaningfully repurposed for zoo needs or not. If not, they become just a very costly burden and get neglected in order to not throw away funds needed elsewhere.
That is only part of the equation, the other part is the imagination of the responsible zoo management team. I am not saying that every zoo building should be maintained, but some zoos have been more successful in repurposing than others and that can't be just brought down to money alone.
This thread is sponsored by: Concrete”R”Us Inc?![]()
Well that is the thing with randomizationWe have already had about half of these concrete heavy structures by now.