Are Audubon Zoo, Aquarium & Insectarium separate facilities or one?

Kudu21

Kudu21

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
{Note from mods - this thread split from here: Parade Magazine (1989) - Best and worst zoos in America}




DavidBrown said:
The zoo is still considered a major zoo and much better regarded than being "half-decent". You toss off the Insectarium and aquarium as if they are minor achievements. The zoo has made major advances in the last 40 years, just not to your tastes perhaps.
Click to expand...

While operated by the same organization, I do not see how the aquarium and insectarium as separate entities from the zoo reflect on the quality of the zoo other than as an excuse for delayed development due to a diversion of funds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Major advances" could describe the aquarium and insectarium, but looking just at the zoo it's important to note that it has only marginally changed since the 1980s. Stagnant is an apt description when looking at the facts.
Click to expand...


Kudu21 said:
While operated by the same organization, I do not see how the aquarium and insectarium as separate entities from the zoo reflect on the quality of the zoo other than as an excuse for delayed development due to a diversion of funds. I would be inclined to agree with @snowleopard and say that overall the Audubon Zoo is largely disappointing — decent but disappointing — it’s dated with a lot of unreached potential — largely due to decades of mismanagement, squandered funds, and extreme turnover in staff. The newer developments (elephants, lions, orangutans, nocturnal building) are all nice enough from a visitor perspective, but they have all already had welfare and husbandry concerns that have had to be addressed post-construction. The mixed-savannas and pampas are nice but decades old, and the reptile house is impressive but showing its age. The Louisiana Swamp has impressive theming, but many of the exhibits are now small and dated… And the rest of the zoo… Small enclosures with dated holding and a lot of wasted space.
Click to expand...


The aquarium and the insectarium are extensions of the zoo. They are all connected. They are no different from the Omaha Zoo building an aquarium and insectarium except that they are not on the main zoo campus.

You are quibbling about exhibits at the zoo itself needing to be fixed post-construction, which seems to be quite common as real world use of exhibits reveals issues that would not be known until animals were living in them.

What are we even arguing about at this point? This started as a discussion of whether the Audubon Zoo is still considered a leading zoo as it was in the 1980s. Is it a leading zoo in 2022? Their Insectarium is, so in a sense, yes. As an organization they are still on the cutting edge in that respect.

The main zoo itself is still considered a fine zoo, but probably not cutting edge. If Parade Magazine did an updated zoo report then the Audubon Zoo would probably not be on the list of "10 best zoos", but nor would they be considered anything else than a still-good zoo.
 
Last edited:
DavidBrown said:
The aquarium and the insectarium are extensions of the zoo. They are all connected. They are no different from the Omaha Zoo building an aquarium and insectarium except that they are not on the main zoo campus.

You are quibbling about exhibits at the zoo itself needing to be fixed post-construction, which seems to be quite common as real world use of exhibits reveals issues that would not be known until animals were living in them.

What are we even arguing about at this point? This started as a discussion of whether the Audubon Zoo is still considered a leading zoo as it was in the 1980s. Is it a leading zoo in 2022? Their Insectarium is, so in a sense, yes. As an organization they are still on the cutting edge in that respect.

The main zoo itself is still considered a fine zoo, but probably not cutting edge. If Parade Magazine did an updated zoo report then the Audubon Zoo would probably not be on the list of "10 best zoos", but nor would they be considered anything else than a still-good zoo.
Click to expand...
The aquarium/insectarium is not really connected to the zoo, in the sense that Omaha's aquarium is to its zoo. Both Audubon facilities are on separate sides of town and they charge separate admission.
 
SusScrofa said:
The aquarium/insectarium is not really connected to the zoo, in the sense that Omaha's aquarium is to its zoo. Both Audubon facilities are on separate sides of town and they charge separate admission.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are connected to the zoo. They are functionally all one institution, just as the aquarium and insectarium at the Omaha Zoo are part of that institution.
 
I agree with @SusScrofa and @Kudu21 in their comments on Audubon Zoo. Even though one organization (Audubon Nature Institute) runs all three facilities, they are not connected as the zoo and aquarium are on separate sites. The aquarium is more than a 20-minute drive away from all those 1980s-era zoo exhibits. Anyone visiting the zoo and aquarium would count them as TWO facilities.

Omaha's insectarium and aquarium are free with general admission and contained within the zoo's grounds and no one would count the insectarium as one facility, then the aquarium as another facility, and then the zoo as a third. That would be nonsense. The Audubon Aquarium of the Americas is a separate attraction with a $34 ($46 Canadian for me!) ticket price. A separate attraction costing $46 CAD is clearly standing on its own, without a shadow of a doubt. It seems silly to suggest otherwise. Are Prospect Park and Queens Wildlife Center one facility?

The main point of this discussion has been that the Audubon Insectarium closed down but is getting a shiny new, expensive home. The Aquarium of the Americas opened in 1990 and is part of the $34 million makeover that will combine it with the Insectarium. The zoo, on the other hand, has not received a lot of love and literally every single geographical zone dates from decades ago other than a few disappointing revamps like the lions and elephants. It might or might not be deemed stagnancy, but Audubon Zoo is not what it once was and is miles away from being a top 10 American zoo.
 
Dang snowleopard and SusScrofa beat me to it. But yea the Audobon facilities are far away from each other and have different admission prices similar to WCS zoos rather than Omaha which has its aquatic and insect collection on the zoo grounds. In fact the aquarium is so far, it definitely cannot have a combo ticket the way, for example, the Berlin Zoo and Berlin Aquarium has which could reduce the aquarium's status as its own facility to just a part of the Berlin Zoo.
 
Last edited:
snowleopard said:
I agree with @SusScrofa and @Kudu21 in their comments on Audubon Zoo. Even though one organization (Audubon Nature Institute) runs all three facilities, they are not connected as the zoo and aquarium are on separate sites. The aquarium is more than a 20-minute drive away from all those 1980s-era zoo exhibits. Anyone visiting the zoo and aquarium would count them as TWO facilities.

Omaha's insectarium and aquarium are free with general admission and contained within the zoo's grounds and no one would count the insectarium as one facility, then the aquarium as another facility, and then the zoo as a third. That would be nonsense. The Audubon Aquarium of the Americas is a separate attraction with a $34 ($46 Canadian for me!) ticket price. A separate attraction costing $46 CAD is clearly standing on its own, without a shadow of a doubt. It seems silly to suggest otherwise. Are Prospect Park and Queens Wildlife Center one facility?

The main point of this discussion has been that the Audubon Insectarium closed down but is getting a shiny new, expensive home. The Aquarium of the Americas opened in 1990 and is part of the $34 million makeover that will combine it with the Insectarium. The zoo, on the other hand, has not received a lot of love and literally every single geographical zone dates from decades ago other than a few disappointing revamps like the lions and elephants. It might or might not be deemed stagnancy, but Audubon Zoo is not what it once was and is miles away from being a top 10 American zoo.
Click to expand...

I don't see any difference from a planning perspective in Audubon and Omaha. Audubon has developed an aquarium, insectarium, and zoo, as has Omaha. They administer them with different business models. But functionally they are the same.

Making zoo nerd lists splits hairs, but if you are looking at how much an organization has advanced since the 1980s, the Audubon organization has accomplished things in the same ballpark as Omaha. That is ultimately what we are talking about here with "stagnation", or not.
 
DavidBrown said:
I don't see any difference from a planning perspective in Audubon and Omaha. Audubon has developed an aquarium, insectarium, and zoo, as has Omaha. They administer them with different business models. But functionally they are the same.

Making zoo nerd lists splits hairs, but if you are looking at how much an organization has advanced since the 1980s, the Audubon organization has accomplished things in the same ballpark as Omaha. That is ultimately what we are talking about here with "stagnation", or not.
Click to expand...

This is kind of fun. At least now you are clarifying your comments by thinking of Audubon as one large entity while the rest of us are thinking of Audubon as three separate attractions. If one is looking only at the zoo, then this is what you initially stated:

"The zoo itself has rebuilt large sections of the zoo to modern standards in the subsequent decades with a new reptile complex, elephant exhibit, nocturnal house, South America complex, orangutan exhibit, etc. They have not at all remained stagnant."

The Reptile House is not new but in fact an 1980s revamp. The South American complex is also from the 1980s. The elephant exhibit is a renovation that is mediocre at best. The orangutans got 25% more space. The Nocturnal House is definitely a nice addition. But, looking only at the zoo, it's a poor reflection on 40 years of development.

And I'm not sure that any American zoological institution can be compared to Omaha in the past few decades. Maybe San Diego? Omaha spent more on ONE complex (African Grasslands) than Audubon has spent on its zoo, aquarium, insectarium, nature center, planetarium, golf course, riverfront park jogging lanes, etc. (because it's all one attraction, right? ;)) since the 1980s.
 
snowleopard said:
This is kind of fun. At least now you are clarifying your comments by thinking of Audubon as one large entity while the rest of us are thinking of Audubon as three separate attractions. If one is looking only at the zoo, then this is what you initially stated:

"The zoo itself has rebuilt large sections of the zoo to modern standards in the subsequent decades with a new reptile complex, elephant exhibit, nocturnal house, South America complex, orangutan exhibit, etc. They have not at all remained stagnant."

The Reptile House is not new but in fact an 1980s revamp. The South American complex is also from the 1980s. The elephant exhibit is a renovation that is mediocre at best. The orangutans got 25% more space. The Nocturnal House is definitely a nice addition. But, looking only at the zoo, it's a poor reflection on 40 years of development.

And I'm not sure that any American zoological institution can be compared to Omaha in the past few decades. Maybe San Diego? Omaha spent more on ONE complex (African Grasslands) than Audubon has spent on its zoo, aquarium, insectarium, nature center, planetarium, golf course, riverfront park jogging lanes, etc. (because it's all one attraction, right? ;)) since the 1980s.
Click to expand...

I did not say that they were all one attraction, I said that they are one institution, which is true. As stated, I have not been to the zoo, but I have tracked their progress across many years out of interest. You for some reason want to think that their zoo of the 1980s has changed little, which is not true, but you will believe what you want to believe.
 
DavidBrown said:
Making zoo nerd lists splits hairs, but if you are looking at how much an organization has advanced since the 1980s, the Audubon organization has accomplished things in the same ballpark as Omaha. That is ultimately what we are talking about here with "stagnation", or not.
Click to expand...

This is likely the biggest hot take I've seen on this forum.

It doesn't matter if they're all under one organization. They are separate locations, separate addresses. The same staff doesn't work at them. SeaWorld is one organization, but three facilities.
 
TinoPup said:
This is likely the biggest hot take I've seen on this forum.

It doesn't matter if they're all under one organization. They are separate locations, separate addresses. The same staff doesn't work at them. SeaWorld is one organization, but three facilities.
Click to expand...

No, I think you are incorrect, Tino. It is not a "hot take", but the objective reality of how the Audubon zoological society chose to develop their facilities.

The Audubon Zoo, aquarium, and insectarium are all run by the same management in the same town. The creation of the aquarium and insectarium at Audubon is directly analogous to the creation of similar exhibits at Omaha Zoo, but using a different business model. Instead of building an aquarium and an insectarium on their zoo grounds, they built them on other campuses (originally, now within the same campus).

The Albuquerque zoo uses the same model.
 
Last edited:
For sure I would consider it FOUR separate (Freeport) facilities run by a single organization. As mentioned before SeaWorld (Busch for that matter) is separate facilities. WAP and SD are separate. Hell, even ICC was considered a separate facility from Pittsburgh Zoo, by the same organization. And clearly the article is talking about individual facilities.
 
DavidBrown said:
No, I think you are incorrect, Tino. It is not a "hot take", but the objective reality of how the Audubon zoological society chose to develop their facilities.

The Audubon Zoo, aquarium, and insectarium are all run by the same management in the same town. The creation of the aquarium and insectarium at Audubon is directly analogous to the creation of similar exhibits at Omaha Zoo, but using a different business model. Instead of building an aquarium and an insectarium on their zoo grounds, they built them on other campuses (originally, now within the same campus).

The Albuquerque zoo uses the same model.
Click to expand...
Unless you can get one ticket that works for all three facilities, then I don't see any way that someone can consider them to be the same. Nobody is denying they are owned by the same organization, but that does not mean they are one and the same. It'd be like arguing that Disneyland and Disney World are collectively one theme park because Disney owns both of them- you'd be laughed out of the room with that argument. What makes the Audubon Zoo and Audubon Aquarium of Americas any different? Same ownership, but two different facilities marketed as such. Omaha is not like that because the aquarium is inside the zoo, and included one and the same, advertised as such. Note that despite often hearing "Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium" or "Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium" or "Columbus Zoo and Aquarium", I have not once heard anyone say "Audubon Zoo and Aquarium", because they are not one and the same, are not marketed as such, and should not be considered as such.
 
Aardwolf said:
I'll just say, people I know who work at Audubon Zoo and Aquarium of the Americas wouldn't consider themselves to be the same institution, no matter what the org chart says
Click to expand...

Well, they objectively are working in the same organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top