Melbourne Zoo Melbourne Zoo News 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
dylan downward said:
King jus wall is part of the old big cat cages
Click to expand...

It’s good to hear they’ve retained part of the old wall. Even when the reasoning behind doing so relates to cost efficiency, I appreciate seeing features of historical relevance. The back wall of Auckland Zoo’s lemur habitat (former tiger cage) was built in 1922, with various adjoining pits housing wolves, tigers etc.

Many zoos are conscious to avoid the complications of having heritage listed features (Melbourne’s Lion Park being a prime example) these days; but presumably the wall (on its own) falls outside this category, otherwise it wouldn’t have been retained.
 
Zoofan15 said:
It’s good to hear they’ve retained part of the old wall. Even when the reasoning behind doing so relates to cost efficiency, I appreciate seeing features of historical relevance. The back wall of Auckland Zoo’s lemur habitat (former tiger cage) was built in 1922, with various adjoining pits housing wolves, tigers etc.

Many zoos are conscious to avoid the complications of having heritage listed features (Melbourne’s Lion Park being a prime example) these days; but presumably the wall (on its own) falls outside this category, otherwise it wouldn’t have been retained.
Click to expand...
The wall would only date back to the 1970's, so not that much heritage value. The original 19thC big cat row has well and truly totally disappeared.
 
MRJ said:
The wall would only date back to the 1970's, so not that much heritage value. The original 19thC big cat row has well and truly totally disappeared.
Click to expand...

It seems like a lot of zoos are conscious not to allow exhibits to lapse into heritage listed status, due to the issues surrounding having an exhibit on site that’s not fit for purpose. London Zoo being a prime example. Melbourne Zoo already has some of these, including the Mandrill House. It’s a shame they can’t be retained AND put to use via reasonable modifications.

Big Cat Row consisted of eight exhibits. It could have easily been renovated to a small felid breeding facility for example.
 
Zoofan15 said:
It seems like a lot of zoos are conscious not to allow exhibits to lapse into heritage listed status, due to the issues surrounding having an exhibit on site that’s not fit for purpose. London Zoo being a prime example. Melbourne Zoo already has some of these, including the Mandrill House. It’s a shame they can’t be retained AND put to use via reasonable modifications.

Big Cat Row consisted of eight exhibits. It could have easily been renovated to a small felid breeding facility for example.
Click to expand...
Which one is the Mandrill House?
 
The Sleepy Hippo said:
Which one is the Mandrill House?
Click to expand...

It’s also known as the Orangutan House:

https://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Royal-Melbourne-Zoo-amend.pdf

The Monkey House, the Mandrill House, the Octagonal Aviary, Lion Enclosure and the former Carnivores Food Preparation Room are representative examples of late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings and structures of The Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens.

The linked document gives an interesting overview of historically significant buildings and features within Melbourne Zoo, including the Elephant House, Great Flight Aviary and the Giraffe House.
 
The Sleepy Hippo said:
Which one is the Mandrill House?
Click to expand...

Zoofan15 said:
It’s also known as the Orangutan House:

https://heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Royal-Melbourne-Zoo-amend.pdf

The Monkey House, the Mandrill House, the Octagonal Aviary, Lion Enclosure and the former Carnivores Food Preparation Room are representative examples of late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings and structures of The Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens.

The linked document gives an interesting overview of historically significant buildings and features within Melbourne Zoo, including the Elephant House, Great Flight Aviary and the Giraffe House.
Click to expand...
There's two cages that sit beside the main drive. One is obviously the former Orangutan/Mandrill house and the other the former Monkey house. They're located on the left and right of the trail of the elephants exit; but the one on the right isn't visible (surrounded by vegetation).
 
BasecatXD said:
Are the binturongs already on display?
Click to expand...

It’s unclear as they’re now listed on the zoo’s map; but their debut hasn’t been announced on socials and nobody from here has visited to confirm. I’d suggest contacting the zoo direct if you were planning to visit with the expectation of seeing them.

If they’re not on display, their debut will be imminent (as per their inclusion on the map).
 
Zoofan15 said:
It’s unclear as they’re now listed on the zoo’s map; but their debut hasn’t been announced on socials and nobody from here has visited to confirm. I’d suggest contacting the zoo direct if you were planning to visit with the expectation of seeing them.

If they’re not on display, their debut will be imminent (as per their inclusion on the map).
Click to expand...
I’ll probably visit in a month or two
 
Jambo said:
There's two cages that sit beside the main drive. One is obviously the former Orangutan/Mandrill house and the other the former Monkey house. They're located on the left and right of the trail of the elephants exit; but the one on the right isn't visible (surrounded by vegetation).
Click to expand...
Those cages are in fact the former orangutan and chimpanzee houses. I have a dim memory they may have held other species before the end of their use as animal enclosures, but that would have only been only for a few years at most.
 
Zoofan15 said:
It seems like a lot of zoos are conscious not to allow exhibits to lapse into heritage listed status, due to the issues surrounding having an exhibit on site that’s not fit for purpose. London Zoo being a prime example. Melbourne Zoo already has some of these, including the Mandrill House. It’s a shame they can’t be retained AND put to use via reasonable modifications.

Big Cat Row consisted of eight exhibits. It could have easily been renovated to a small felid breeding facility for example.
Click to expand...
Funny story about heritage listing at Melbourne Zoo. the Zoo used to have a lovely Victorian-era wrought iron aviary that was dismantled and stored at some point. A member of staff went to the heritage people and asked if it could be protected. They said no, because it had already been dismantled, but thought what else was there we could classify? That was when the structures mentioned were classified, up to that point the Zoo had flown under the gaze of the heritage people.

Interesting that the Lion Park had been classified, that debunks the theory it was demolished to avoid heritage classification.

Yes, London Zoo is a classic example. However many of it's enclosures were built as architectural monuments in the first place, with little regard for the animals they were meant to house. To my mind that is a big no-no in any zoo.
 
MRJ said:
Those cages are in fact the former orangutan and chimpanzee houses. I have a dim memory they may have held other species before the end of their use as animal enclosures, but that would have only been only for a few years at most.
Click to expand...
That would make a lot of sense. This would've been prior to the grottoes; so stretching back to the 60's I think. Mandrills may have been kept in the one that was previously used for orangutans (hence it being referred to as the Mandrill house), but this was vacated by the mid 70's.
MRJ said:
Interesting that the Lion Park had been classified, that debunks the theory it was demolished to avoid heritage classification.
Click to expand...
It certainly could've been as it was 47 years old at the time and Melbourne apparently had to receive a permit to demolish it.
 
BasecatXD said:
I can’t wait for the binturongs. I loved the coatis (idk why everyone says they never saw them, I saw them all the time), but I still think binturongs will be a wonderful addition to the zoo
Click to expand...
I too saw the coatis often. They were actually quite active; foraging. In saying that, it will be great to have Binturongs again. Such a fascinating species to visit, and will perhaps make better use of the aboreal pathways within the exhibit.
 
Jambo said:
I too saw the coatis often. They were actually quite active; foraging. In saying that, it will be great to have Binturongs again. Such a fascinating species to visit, and will perhaps make better use of the aboreal pathways within the exhibit.
Click to expand...

It was nice to have the coatis for the sake of geographical diversity. maned wolf will likely never return to Melbourne Zoo, so it’s a shame to loose South America from the Carnviores precinct.

The binturong species will be a nice addition however and will be better adapted than a small felid species, which wouldn’t have thrived being housed in such close proximity to the tigers and snow leopards.
 
MRJ said:
Funny story about heritage listing at Melbourne Zoo. the Zoo used to have a lovely Victorian-era wrought iron aviary that was dismantled and stored at some point. A member of staff went to the heritage people and asked if it could be protected. They said no, because it had already been dismantled, but thought what else was there we could classify? That was when the structures mentioned were classified, up to that point the Zoo had flown under the gaze of the heritage people.

Interesting that the Lion Park had been classified, that debunks the theory it was demolished to avoid heritage classification.

Yes, London Zoo is a classic example. However many of it's enclosures were built as architectural monuments in the first place, with little regard for the animals they were meant to house. To my mind that is a big no-no in any zoo.
Click to expand...
Jambo said:
That would make a lot of sense. This would've been prior to the grottoes; so stretching back to the 60's I think. Mandrills may have been kept in the one that was previously used for orangutans (hence it being referred to as the Mandrill house), but this was vacated by the mid 70's.

It certainly could've been as it was 47 years old at the time and Melbourne apparently had to receive a permit to demolish it.
Click to expand...

It’s very true that architecture is now adapted to the species; rather than the species adapting to the architecture. While London Zoo’s exhibits were architectural icons in their own right, many of the main zoos retain elephant and giraffe houses from the Victorian era and Melbourne Zoo is now exception.

Heritage listing is important to ensure exhibits aren’t scrapped (Auckland Zoo has lost a bunch of old exhibits in recent years); but the constraints shouldn’t be so restrictive that they render the building uninhabitable. The Orangutan House could be repurposed for a smaller species, with modifications that would allow it to retain its original character.
 
Zoofan15 said:
It’s very true that architecture is now adapted to the species; rather than the species adapting to the architecture. While London Zoo’s exhibits were architectural icons in their own right, many of the main zoos retain elephant and giraffe houses from the Victorian era and Melbourne Zoo is now exception.
Click to expand...

It is more ideological than that. Many of the great houses and exhibits of the past were intended to show man's dominion over nature. Many others were simply expressions of architectural style, and the animal is hardly thought about. Immersive exhibits, as pioneered by Jones & Jones, were designed to have visitor and animal apparently inhabiting the same space. The visitor is here, on a jungle path, and over there is the animal, with no visible barrier. Man is part of nature, not controlling it.

Zoofan15 said:
Heritage listing is important to ensure exhibits aren’t scrapped (Auckland Zoo has lost a bunch of old exhibits in recent years); but the constraints shouldn’t be so restrictive that they render the building uninhabitable. The Orangutan House could be repurposed for a smaller species, with modifications that would allow it to retain its original character.
Click to expand...
The orangutan house was specifically preserved as a heritage exhibit. The Hancocks masterplan had the main parade down to the elephant sculpture as a Victorian garden precinct, with the orang house included, tying the Zoo to it's past.

I think to modify it for a small mammal would mean that it would lose any sense of what for or how the exhibit was used, and what it must have meant to be an orangutan in it. Of course if your zoo is full of heritage exhibits then such modifications are essential. One such zoo is Jardin de Plantes in Paris. I remember two small bear pits converted for binturongs and red pandas. They were adequate for that purpose, but visitors had no sense of their original role for bears.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top