America's 100 Must See Exhibits

[Great Argus]

you have to understand how I interpreted that the way I did, especially when a majority of your posts on this thread have been negative so far. I feel like I've consistently had to debate you which is why I've repeated myself on my intentions with this project several times. I appreciate debate and discussion, but it's become rather frustrating to hear you challenge my picks over and over again more than any other member. I can respect your perspective and I want you to contribute, but comments like the one I quoted above are really discouraging to hear.

I can understand that, and I am aware I've generally had negative comments rather than positives - typically it has been the controversial choices that provoke the most debate and most likely for me to thus comment. I do have to admit I don't see the must-see quality in several choices so far, and I think it is only fair to hear both sides. There are a few cases I have perhaps been a bit overly harsh, but to me with the title of "America's 100 must-see exhibits," the content hasn't exactly met what I was expecting in a few cases. I am aware of how the thread is operating and was curated and I have tried to be mindful in my comments in recognition of this. Perhaps I need to consider wording more carefully going forwards. It is certainly not my intention to attack you or be causing more drama than necessary.

I apologize for that remark, which I’ll admit was unnecessarily snarky. It just becomes frustrating when you make such harsh statements while leaving out crucial information, even if it was by accident. Regardless, that wasn't fair of me to insinuate that and I am genuinely sorry.

Apology accepted, and like I said it was my fault for not double checking and missing KC, and exhibit which is quite good and would have prevented the harsh tone of said statement.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Given the fact that I know little to nothing about most of the zoological collections and exhibits under discussion, I've largely been restricting myself to reading and enjoying the thread, and letting myself be taken along for the ride... but I will make one observation:

I think it is possible that some (if not all) of the criticisms being directed towards some of the choices being made are a result of @pachyderm pro feeling like he needed to match the number set by @lintworm in the thread which inspired this one, with the result that the list of "must see" exhibits has been padded a little?

 

[15399]

I can understand that, and I am aware I've generally had negative comments rather than positives - typically it has been the controversial choices that provoke the most debate and most likely for me to thus comment. I do have to admit I don't see the must-see quality in several choices so far, and I think it is only fair to hear both sides. There are a few cases I have perhaps been a bit overly harsh, but to me with the title of "America's 100 must-see exhibits," the content hasn't exactly met what I was expecting in a few cases. I am aware of how the thread is operating and was curated and I have tried to be mindful in my comments in recognition of this. Perhaps I need to consider wording more carefully going forwards. It is certainly not my intention to attack you or be causing more drama than necessary.



Apology accepted, and like I said it was my fault for not double checking and missing KC, and exhibit which is quite good and would have prevented the harsh tone of said statement.

I will say, while there were certainly some questionable picks (Wisconsin Heritage and Racine's Stork Aviary come to mind), overall I think @pachyderm pro has come up with a pretty good list of must-see exhibits. After the first entry was posted, I made a list of guesses for the remaining 99 exhibits. So far, out of 38 exhibits, 25 have been choices that I've included on my list. That goes to show that most options have been able to gain at least some consensus, as that's about two-thirds of the exhibits so far. To give even more credit to the list by @pachyderm pro, seven of the thirteen exhibits that were not on my list I either wasn't aware of their existence, or I forgot/overlooked them in the process of making my predictions. So to be a third of the way in, and for me to personally only disagree with six picks (two of which are popular exhibits that I just personally think are overrated), that's a rather impressive amount of consensus, only disagreeing on 15% of picks. I don't know if anyone else also made predictions, but if so I'd be curious to hear how well their predictions have stacked up with this list- as if others are in a similar boat then that would add to the credibility of the list so far.

 

[Pleistocene891]

I will say, while there were certainly some questionable picks (Wisconsin Heritage and Racine's Stork Aviary come to mind), overall I think @pachyderm pro has come up with a pretty good list of must-see exhibits. After the first entry was posted, I made a list of guesses for the remaining 99 exhibits. So far, out of 38 exhibits, 25 have been choices that I've included on my list. That goes to show that most options have been able to gain at least some consensus, as that's about two-thirds of the exhibits so far. To give even more credit to the list by @pachyderm pro, seven of the thirteen exhibits that were not on my list I either wasn't aware of their existence, or I forgot/overlooked them in the process of making my predictions. So to be a third of the way in, and for me to personally only disagree with six picks (two of which are popular exhibits that I just personally think are overrated), that's a rather impressive amount of consensus, only disagreeing on 15% of picks. I don't know if anyone else also made predictions, but if so I'd be curious to hear how well their predictions have stacked up with this list- as if others are in a similar boat then that would add to the credibility of the list so far.

So far I have correctly predicted 33/39 exhibits.

 

[JVM]

The process, time and time again, is so:

Pachyderm Pro describes an exhibit as a "must-see" based on a factor that is not a comprehensive assessment of total quality, including distinctive, one-of-a-kind exhibits that we can qualify as "unique".

Users respond that there are superior exhibits out there that haven't been included yet, and therefore the selected, quirky exhibit is not, in fact, a must-see at all, because why see the distinctive but inferior exhibit when there are better exhibits out there?

There is often an implication that Pachy shouldn't pick x when y exists (understandable to a point) to which Pachy often has to insist the list is not complete and we may see later, but Pachy (also understandably) does not want speculation as it will ruin the fun of the reveal.

The badger exhibit, Colombus' Savannah, Racine's stork aviary, Indianapolis' dolphin exhibit, Tropic World, the black bear exhibit, IOC, and, for sake of argument, something like the infamous Elephant Odyessy, are all unique, one-of-a-kind exhibits like nothing else in the United States, but not a single one of them is the best at what they are, and that is why they become controversial choices.

The debate behind every exhibit is, time and time again, "unique" exhibits versus high-quality exhibits, and this is in some ways a deeper question than the question of any individual exhibit being on this list.

Every exhibit outside that extremely specific dispute/question has been pretty non-controversial that I've seen.

 

[pachyderm pro]

I can understand that, and I am aware I've generally had negative comments rather than positives - typically it has been the controversial choices that provoke the most debate and most likely for me to thus comment. I do have to admit I don't see the must-see quality in several choices so far, and I think it is only fair to hear both sides. There are a few cases I have perhaps been a bit overly harsh, but to me with the title of "America's 100 must-see exhibits," the content hasn't exactly met what I was expecting in a few cases. I am aware of how the thread is operating and was curated and I have tried to be mindful in my comments in recognition of this. Perhaps I need to consider wording more carefully going forwards. It is certainly not my intention to attack you or be causing more drama than necessary.

Thank you for saying that. I agree it's only fair to hear both sides and I appreciate your input. My frustration mainly stemmed from many of the posts being predominately negative, not necessarily you disagreeing with any one entry. I'm hopeful things will be little calmer from here on out.

I think it is possible that some (if not all) of the criticisms being directed towards some of the choices being made are a result of @pachyderm pro feeling like he needed to match the number set by @lintworm in the thread which inspired this one, with the result that the list of "must see" exhibits has been padded a little?

From a European perspective I can understand how it may seem that way. The US lacks the much deeper history with zoos that Europe has and the greater number of collections in general. I'll fully admit that Europe has more exhibits that would feature on a worldwide must-see list than the US does and some of the picks here wouldn't even come close to making the Europe thread. However, my biggest motivation for creating this thread and 'America's 50 Must-see Zoos' was to show that the US also had a ton that was worth seeing. I spent 10 months working on the list, researching, writing, editing and surveying opinions from other well-traveled members. At first it was hard to come up with 100 picks, but by the end I was struggling to decide what exhibits to cut. I firmly believe America does have 100 must-see exhibits and for those who disagree with any of the choices so far, stay tuned. When the list is done I will be going over a number of honorable mentions that could have made the list and we can hash out our differences then. Until then, I hope everyone will continue to follow along as we still have a long way to go. A very, very long way...

 

[Chlidonias]

The process, time and time again, is so:

Pachyderm Pro describes an exhibit as a "must-see" based on a factor that is not a comprehensive assessment of total quality, including distinctive, one-of-a-kind exhibits that we can qualify as "unique".

Users respond that there are superior exhibits out there that haven't been included yet, and therefore the selected, quirky exhibit is not, in fact, a must-see at all, because why see the distinctive but inferior exhibit when there are better exhibits out there?

There is often an implication that Pachy shouldn't pick x when y exists (understandable to a point) to which Pachy often has to insist the list is not complete and we may see later, but Pachy (also understandably) does not want speculation as it will ruin the fun of the reveal.

The badger exhibit, Colombus' Savannah, Racine's stork aviary, Indianapolis' dolphin exhibit, Tropic World, the black bear exhibit, IOC, and, for sake of argument, something like the infamous Elephant Odyessy, are all unique, one-of-a-kind exhibits like nothing else in the United States, but not a single one of them is the best at what they are, and that is why they become controversial choices.

The debate behind every exhibit is, time and time again, "unique" exhibits versus high-quality exhibits, and this is in some ways a deeper question than the question of any individual exhibit being on this list.

Every exhibit outside that extremely specific dispute/question has been pretty non-controversial that I've seen.

Or - just throwing this out there - people simply don't understand why some of the exhibits are included in the first place.

Speaking with regards to my own posts, I know very little about which exhibits are in which American zoos (apart for the best-known examples), so if I see something on this list which looks pretty pedestrian in the photos and I read the description several times and I still cannot figure out what makes it "must see" - e.g. the first "African savannah" I commented upon (I can't remember which one of them it was now), or that stork aviary - I will query it. And the defence given is often somewhat lacking in the quality of "this is why it is must see". Followed by a plaintive "wait until the list is finished!" The list doesn't need to be complete to critique any one inclusion within the list.

 

[Great Argus]

From a European perspective I can understand how it may seem that way.

Quite honestly in several cases I think several of us Americans are wondering the same - particularly with the three likes on TLD's post all being Americans. Not to mention disagreement on choices coming from both American and international members.

When the list is done I will be going over a number of honorable mentions that could have made the list and we can hash out our differences then.

If I may ask, why list the similar exhibits at the bottom of each post then? Will some of those return for this part as well or is it completely unmentioned ones all together?

Or - just throwing this out there - people simply don't understand why some of the exhibits are included in the first place.

I think this hits the nail on the head more than anything both for myself and quite a few others, especially the small exhibits such as the ones at Henry Vilas and Racine.
Though too a few have fallen from their former glory and are now more of a disappointment than a stunner. The recent addition of Life on the Rocks was a notable example of an exhibit that has steadily gone downhill in recent years and has been variously described as "missed", "contains long outdated signage," "cardboard animal cutouts," and "half empty".
Judging from the following quote from ThylacineAlive about his visit in 2018, it's not new either: "Life in the Rocks was the perfect example of this when I went: only about half the habitats were stocked and fewer still signed for the species they held. Most of the smaller invertebrate and herp displays have been empty for years, as has the bat cave (though I believe it may now house some fake bats). The pond habitat with frogs that @Coelacanth18 mentioned is signed with the birds it held from when the exhibit opened."
All of which was further confirmed by Coelacanth18 and Arizona Docent both in this thread and elsewhere. The exhibit complex itself may still look nice and certainly would have stood tall some years ago, but now most of the recent visitors have said it's sad to see the collection falling apart and dwindling all too fast. It's just not up there on people's lists anymore, and the museum itself as a whole seems to be steadily falling from its once much-esteemed status in the zoo enthusiast world...

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

The IOC has some of the best contemporary architecture in a zoo (.

Best contemporary architecture is a oxymoron

 

[pachyderm pro]

If I may ask, why list the similar exhibits at the bottom of each post then? Will some of those return for this part as well or is it completely unmentioned ones all together?

It will just be for unmentioned ones that didn't appear under the "similar exhibits" listing.

I think this hits the nail on the head more than anything both for myself and quite a few others, especially the small exhibits such as the ones at Henry Vilas and Racine.

I can understand that. While things have gotten heated, I really don't think the list as a whole has been as controversial as it may seem. Wisconsin Heritage and the stork aviary seem to be the two exhibits that most people have vehemently disagreed with and I'll concede those are probably the two weirdest choices. Heart of Africa, Black Bear Falls, and the dolphin pavilion have resulted in split decisions, with many people arguing both in favor and against their inclusion. Tropic World and the International Orangutan Center are controversial in nature, but I'd argue very few would be against their inclusion as "must-see" no matter what their personal opinions of them are. Then there's Life on the Rocks which is sort of in a weird spot. It's generally accepted that it's a superbly designed complex, but is undoubtably past its prime for the reasons cited above so its inclusion can also be debated.

Everything else seems to widely agreed upon or at the very least understood. So if we're about 40 exhibits in with only six or seven controversial choices, I don't think that's so bad. If most people generally agree with at least 80% of this list, I'd consider that a success.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Best contemporary architecture is a oxymoron

In what way?

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

I will say, while there were certainly some questionable picks (Wisconsin Heritage and Racine's Stork Aviary come to mind), overall I think @pachyderm pro has come up with a pretty good list of must-see exhibits. After the first entry was posted, I made a list of guesses for the remaining 99 exhibits. So far, out of 38 exhibits, 25 have been choices that I've included on my list. That goes to show that most options have been able to gain at least some consensus, as that's about two-thirds of the exhibits so far. To give even more credit to the list by @pachyderm pro, seven of the thirteen exhibits that were not on my list I either wasn't aware of their existence, or I forgot/overlooked them in the process of making my predictions. So to be a third of the way in, and for me to personally only disagree with six picks (two of which are popular exhibits that I just personally think are overrated), that's a rather impressive amount of consensus, only disagreeing on 15% of picks. I don't know if anyone else also made predictions, but if so I'd be curious to hear how well their predictions have stacked up with this list- as if others are in a similar boat then that would add to the credibility of the list so far.

I also managed to guess 13 exhibits after Desert Dome was posted, the 15th entry on the list. I have 38 more exhibits waiting on my list left, which may or may not be posted soon enough as now we have 61 exhibits to go.

However, I also do feel like 100 exhibits are a much more tall order than I thought. It's a tough job for @pachyderm pro to really justify everything on the list to be as presentable and as must see as possible. Though for the most part people at the very least understand the inclusion of the choices included so far, bar Stork Aviary which basically has the least amount of agreements (including me)

 

[lintworm]

I think one problem with the thread is not so much the list, but the extent to which a large group is somewhat overinvolved and takes it too seriously. This is supposed to be a fun exercise of which no rights can be derived. Taking it serious is fun if you agree, but less fun if you disagree. Nobody will claim that this is some kind of official list and so it should be treated a bit more lightheartedly.

Of course that doesn't mean you can't disagree with the list or comment on it, that is most of the fun. All the predictions and creating shadow lists, might be fun personally, but doesn't really add anything to the thread. I also can't say I agree with some inclusions, but that is to be expected. I don't know enough about American zoos to assess what is worthy of inclusion and what is not, though from the current list it indeed seems a taller order to get to 100 compared to Europe. That doesn't mean these enclosures aren't worth highlighting, or that PP's choices are the "right" calls. But a more relaxed approach would be a much nicer read.

 

[JVM]

Or - just throwing this out there - people simply don't understand why some of the exhibits are included in the first place.

Speaking with regards to my own posts, I know very little about which exhibits are in which American zoos (apart for the best-known examples), so if I see something on this list which looks pretty pedestrian in the photos and I read the description several times and I still cannot figure out what makes it "must see" - e.g. the first "African savannah" I commented upon (I can't remember which one of them it was now), or that stork aviary - I will query it. And the defence given is often somewhat lacking in the quality of "this is why it is must see". Followed by a plaintive "wait until the list is finished!" The list doesn't need to be complete to critique any one inclusion within the list.

That isn't what I intended to convey in that post at all. I feel you are characterizing me as offering a blanket defense of Pachyderm Pro when I was trying to point out some of the same behavior you are highlighting without attacking anyone.

 

[pachyderm pro]

I think one problem with the thread is not so much the list, but the extent to which a large group is somewhat overinvolved and takes it too seriously. This is supposed to be a fun exercise of which no rights can be derived. Taking it serious is fun if you agree, but less fun if you disagree. Nobody will claim that this is some kind of official list and so it should be treated a bit more lightheartedly.

Of course that doesn't mean you can't disagree with the list or comment on it, that is most of the fun. All the predictions and creating shadow lists, might be fun personally, but doesn't really add anything to the thread. I also can't say I agree with some inclusions, but that is to be expected. I don't know enough about American zoos to assess what is worthy of inclusion and what is not, though from the current list it indeed seems a taller order to get to 100 compared to Europe. That doesn't mean these enclosures aren't worth highlighting, or that PP's choices are the "right" calls. But a more relaxed approach would be a much nicer read.

This is a spot-on diagnosis. Don't get me wrong, I love the level of participation we've had and am grateful for how much interest there has been since the thread began, but it's getting to be a bit out of hand. I've lost count of the amount of times myself and others have tried to define what "must-see" means in this context and there's really no point in getting this intense about what exhibits are or aren't included. At the rate we're going, this is going to be one of the longest threads ever produced on this site. Again, love the enthusiasm, but this is nothing more than a fun exercise to provoke discussion and educate people on notable exhibits they may have not known much about previously.

I'm hopeful this is the last time we have a discourse that gets this heated. Naturally, there will be other controversial and/or lesser known exhibits on this list, but I don't anticipate any of them being especially contentious. I just ask that we keep debate friendly and accept that many of us will never fully agree 100%. Things will resume tomorrow, and I'm hopeful we can stay on track for the remainder of this project.

 

[wild boar]

@pachyderm pro, I really appreciate your selection of images. You seem to have a knack for it. I don't look at pictures posted to ZooChat very often, but the ones included here are remarkable, too.

 

[pachyderm pro]

40. Amazon Rising
Shedd Aquarium, IL
Opened: 2000
Size: 8,600 Square Feet (800 Square Meters)
Inhabitants: >250 species of neotropical fish, herps and birds.

Shedd Aquarium recently announced plans to turn its historic galleries into themed complexes which has caused some concern that one of the zoo worlds greatest collections will be dramatically scaled back. However, if this display is any indication, perhaps there is less to worry about than initially thought. A little over 20 years ago, two of the aquarium's original galleries were combined and transformed into a series of outstanding South American tanks and one of the most interesting showcases of Amazonian biodiversity in any zoological institution. The exhibit is centered around representing a flooded forest, with some tanks that will change water levels depending on the season. While theming is present, it's subtle enough to where it isn't overbearing and the quality of the interpretive elements is of an extremely high level. Every tank is beautifully scaped with top-notch detailing and are all packed with a diverse array of species. The larger tanks are also supplemented by a variety of well-done vivaria which further boosts an already extensive collection. The first grouping of floodplain tanks in the gallery are separate from one another, but are all part of a single cohesive ecosystem which can be freely roamed by a variety of lizards, tortoises and birds. Some of the other most notable displays include a lengthy flooded forest tank, a densely vegetated caiman exhibit, and the river channel tank with arapaima and pacu. The latter is due to be expanded as part of the aquarium's centennial campaign, which will further ensure this brilliant gallery remains first in class for years to come.

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

Similar Exhibits: Another excellent showcase of neotropical river ecosystems is the Amazonia building at Smithsonian’s National Zoo. Instead of being a gallery, it's structured more like a walkthrough rainforest with many free-roaming species. It's also a bit larger than Shedd Aquarium's display, but the collection isn't even close to being as diverse with a focus on just a few larger tanks that aren't as well designed.

@SwampDonkey

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

 

[SwampDonkey]

40. Amazon Rising
Shedd Aquarium, IL
Opened: 2000
Size: 8,600 Square Feet (800 Square Meters)
Inhabitants: >250 species of neotropical fish, herps and birds.

Shedd Aquarium recently announced plans to turn its historic galleries into themed complexes which has caused some concern that one of the zoo worlds greatest collections will be dramatically scaled back. However, if this display is any indication, perhaps there is less to worry about than initially thought. A little over 20 years ago, two of the aquarium's original galleries were combined and transformed into a series of outstanding South American tanks and one of the most interesting showcases of Amazonian biodiversity in any zoological institution. The exhibit is centered around representing a flooded forest, with some tanks that will change water levels depending on the season. While theming is present, it's subtle enough to where it isn't overbearing and the quality of the interpretive elements is of an extremely high level. Every tank is beautifully scaped with top-notch detailing and are all packed with a diverse array of species. The larger tanks are also supplemented by a variety of well-done vivaria which further boosts an already extensive collection. The first grouping of floodplain tanks in the gallery are separate from one another, but are all part of a single cohesive ecosystem which can be freely roamed by a variety of lizards, tortoises and birds. Some of the other most notable displays include a lengthy flooded forest tank, a densely vegetated caiman exhibit, and the river channel tank with arapaima and pacu. The latter is due to be expanded as part of the aquarium's centennial campaign, which will further ensure this brilliant gallery remains first in class for years to come.

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

@pachyderm pro

Similar Exhibits: Another excellent showcase of neotropical river ecosystems is the Amazonia building at Smithsonian’s National Zoo. Instead of being a gallery, it's structured more like a walkthrough rainforest with many free-roaming species. It's also a bit larger than Shedd Aquarium's display, but the collection isn't even close to being as diverse with a focus on just a few larger tanks that aren't as well designed.

@SwampDonkey

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

I find it interesting that the comparable is a zoo, while the original is an aquarium. Different takes from the two main categories of captive collections. Great choice here on the comparable and original, IMO.

 

[ifesbob]

I'd be interested to read any actual research on this subject and could provide actual evidence to the behavioral affect indoor vs. outdoor spaces have on captive wildlife, including primates. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any projects that have tackled this question.

I would also be interested to see this. One thing I've definitely noticed when it comes to captive animals or even domestic animals in some cases is that what people think is best sometimes isn't what is actually best empirically.

Wisconsin Heritage
Henry Vilas Zoo, WI
Opened: 2016
Size: 2,500 Square Feet (230 Square Meters)
Inhabitants: American Badger, Sandhill Crane

It's awesome to see my local zoo here! I was not expecting one of their exhibits to make the cut, but you're right that it's a unique exhibit.

I will always argue that an exhibit that allows animals to best exhibit their natural behaviors is better than a “looker.” I am much more apt to stop and watch a native species that I would otherwise probably take a passing glance at if I immediately see them active and engaging with their exhibit. That’s entertaining and draws people in to see a less flashy species that’s in their own backyard!

Yes, I've been able to see the badgers active basically every time I've gone past Wisconsin Heritage, which is impressive because even Henry Vilas's more "impressive" species (by some standards) are hard to see and/or aren't doing anything worth stopping to watch. As in, I'm not going to stop and linger at a sleeping polar bear when there's active badgers across the path.

Nah, the real question is if it's worth however absurd money DAK admission is.

For me, the question is if I want to go to a Disney establishment.

Would you do that if all of the tanks were empty? I don't think any of the Shedd exhibits meet that standard. The basic galleries are galleries, with Amazon Rising, Caribbean Reef, Wild Reef and the Oceanarium being the only fully unique exhibits. I've not heard either reef exhibit brought up on zoochat outside reviews, which suggests to me they are not really well-known. I don't think the Oceanarium stands up to the standard of being fun without animals and I've seen criticism of the sea lion and sea otter habitats. Amazon Rising I may have undersold but the prevalence of Amazon exhibits made me assume that my favoritism of it was personal bias, not testament to quality. When I think of unique aquarium exhibits - Monterey Bay's Kelp Forest, giant open ocean displays, the absurdly cliche underwater tunnel - those are all things the Shedd hasn't done yet. I hate to sound so negative, because I truly love the Shedd and think it's a great institution.

I also love the Shedd, and I'm also not aware of exhibits that impress without animals, but then, I also have to say that it's an interesting criteria for a zoo, where the goal is to see animals. The Shedd is the only major aquarium I've visited, and I also love seeing cool animals regardless of exhibit design, but would I visit Shedd for their exhibits if I could see the animals themselves closer by? Probably not, but then, it's a zoo/aquarium, you go mostly (if not entirely) for the animals.

Why would "the exhibit would be fun without animals" ever be a requirement? I wouldn't visit a single zoo exhibit that is currently on this list or even one that is a candidate for this list if it didn't have animals, because having animals is the entire point of a zoo exhibit. The idea that exhibits on this list should be engaging without animals is nonsensical.

I mean, maybe if you're really, really into exhibit design itself, and maybe if the exhibit is well-planted and has cool plants and you're a plant nerd. But honestly I agree, it'd be weird to visit a zoo (at least/especially a paid one) if you weren't going for the animals. The one exception I can think of offhand is if you're using Henry Vilas as a shortcut, but then you're not really "visiting the zoo".

However, if the animal isn't important in deciding which exhibits to include, there are

I'm pretty sure Pachy has said that it can be a factor but is never the deciding factor alone.

Nearly all of their exhibits are world-class, blow-your-socks off impressive

Apparently, I need to refresh my memory on Shedd's exhibits.

35. Black Bear Falls

Hmm, I'm willing to accept that I'm the weird one here, but I actually like the way this looks. It looks right for the animals especially.

Must-see ≠ best, at least certainly not always.

I feel like this has been made clear, especially with the inclusion of Tropic World. Personally, I like that you're including exhibits like this.

I'd chalk this up as a similar entry to Tropic World: it's worth seeing once, if only to find out once and for all how you feel about mock rock... because you really can't talk yourself into ignoring it here!

Personally I think this is much more attractive visually than Tropic World, but I think you're right that it's qualified as "must-see" for reasons similar to Tropic World's inclusion.

If someone were to ever make a list of "America's 50, or 100, or whatever, Most Scenic Zoos," there's no doubt that Cheyenne Mountain would be pretty close to the top. The view from Shrine of the Sun at the top of the park is breathtaking

The scenery alone makes me want to visit this zoo.

What I do NOT understand at all is the comparison of this exhibit to a "church". There is nothing at all church-like about this innovative exhibit. I've been in many, many churches in my lifetime and none of them look at all like the IOC.

The outside looks like some churches, especially megachurches which cast aside more traditional church architecture. It also has a spire which churches have.

@pachyderm pro , overall I am really enjoying this list and reading the opinions presented, yours and otherwise.

 

[groundskeeper24]

Love Amazon Rising. The aquatics are good enough, but the reptile collection in this exhibit is terrific. The caiman lizard exhibit with it's deep pool and climbing opportunities above do a great job of showing what the species is capable of with space.