Zoo Architecture - Bigger is Better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ara
  • Start date Start date
A

Ara

Well-Known Member
The world is subject to fads and trends, and the zoo world is not immune to this.

I've lived for over six decades (ouch!) and I've seen them come and, in many cases, go. I remember when nocturnal houses with reversed day and night lighting were a new thing; when dolphinariums were the latest craze; and when safari parks first burst forth in the UK and Australia. (In fact,safari parks are worthy of a thread of their own, and I will have a go at them later.)

At the moment there seems no clearly defined trend, but there is a worrying tendency towards the glorification of architecture in zoos, with a "bigger/more expensive is better" outlook. Indeed it seems that in a lot of cases the animals are just an excuse for lavish, obscenely expensive houses and enclosures.

I've recently been re-reading a book titled "the Last Great Wild Beast Show' by Jordan and Ormrod, written some years ago, which is quite critical of many UK zoos, but which approves of Marwell, as follows; "Although essentially a modern, progressive collection, Marwell is not an architectural zoological park; the majority of its animal accommodation is of a simple 'cattle house' style.....the buildings are unobtrusive and highly functional, whereas vast concrete structures would blight the landscape and offer few serious advantages over the existing system. It also means that any future redevelopment will not constitute a major headache, most of the houses being simple to dismantle and move or replace."

I don't know if this is still the situation at Marwell (you tell me!) but its an outlook with which I wholeheartedly agree.

We must never lose sight of the fact that it is the animals which are the focus, not the enclosures.
 
Size of course plays a big role in the well being of animals but it doesn't solely mean a huge paddock is going to provide the best life for certain animals. Enrichment is needed of course.

I personally think that exhibits and animals sound be equally focused on whilst visitors stop and view them, maybe like the small comment of " wow I like this enclosure very natural" if we draw too much attention to the animal we will probably end up back at square one, concert, small rough enclosures which in doubt the visitors will have to solely view the animal. Or critisize the enclosure itself. ;)
 
Well,

This is a very nice subject.

Concrete enclosures are for sure a easy way to keep animal - easy to keep clean, easy to "re-use" and you can change the animals without much problems!

But personally I prefer to see natural enclosure. And natural enclosure do not need to be boring - to the visitor or to the animal! and I supose we all agree that the Zoo's main interest should be animal wellfare, correct?

Of course that Zoos depend in the number of (pleased) guests, so a huge habitat, with lots of green is not Ok, but common-sense is a must in everything and I think Zoos should, in first, have naturalist habitat for animal wellfare, and at the same time compromise it a little, so that guest have a nice view.

And lets be honest, I dont find it that hard ... the main problem as I see it, is that many zoos already have their enclosures built and is hard and expensive to change them ...

So, bigger is better? Not necessarily ... but natural is better! And the closer to natural, better!

n
 
Are you speaking of architecture as in buildings or as in artificial rockwork or ... both?

Thinking of the zoos of the late 19th and early 20th century I think of magnificent architectural fantasies: Egyptian temples for giraffes and Tyrolean cabins for goats, etc. For awhile in the late 20th century "natural habitats" prevailed and many building were hidden. But in the past twenty years, gaudy buildings returned as animals are displayed in very human-cultural settings. Villages. Temples. etc.
I have no idea whether the public cares about these fictions or not. They make for nice photos I suppose, but if there isn't a great animal encounter no one will return...not for the architecture.
 
I must admit I'm not a massive fan of these huge modern zoo buildings. I hate it when I enter a so-called immersion exhibit and there is a massive glass monstrosity taking away from the animals and their meticulously re-created habitat. Is it really that hard to disguise zoo buildings? It would help the zoo experience a lot if designers realised that a zoo building is not a chance for them to create an enormous monument to themselves.
 
Not always. UK zoos must learn the lesson of the Casson building at London Zoo. If you hire a famous architect to build a state-of-the-art building it can become a white elephant later on. ZSL has a large and expensive building which is no longer suitable for elephant or rhino, but which is protected so it cannot be modified significantly - so only limited use can be made of it.
If you build cheap and unspectacular structures, you can probably modify them later on - or demolish them if that's the better option.

Alan
 
I appreciate good architecture in zoos and I think it can enhance a zoo visit, just as bad architecture can detract from it, and there will always be examples of both in zoos (and not necessarily agreed on!)

It's right that zoos should aspire to build bigger and better exhibits, if they will improve husbandry, improve the visitor experience and raise attendances. Of course bigger doesn't automatically mean better, and vice versa.

Alan raises the important issue of future flexibility. Zoos have begun to hop aboard the sustainability bandwagon in terms of low-energy buildings (top marks to ZSL for B.U.G.S and Bronx Zoo for Madagascar in that respect), but another aspect of sustainable construction is to design buildings that are adaptable for different uses. Arguably the Casson Pavilion fulfils this criteria, as well as having architectural merit, although I grant you that ZSL need to rethink the inside space. I also think zoos should make better plans for growing or extending new exhibits in the future.

As for the point about the intrusiveness of zoo buildings, I would say this is a matter of personal taste. If you want climate-controlled walkthrough "immersion" exhibits with tropical jungle planting, you need to enclose them in some form of shell with a transparent or translucent cladding (ie glass, perspex or ETFE). This requires a lot of visible structure to hold it up, so you're never going to feel truly immersed in a landscape. I would rather the structure had some interest than for it to be a cheap and hastily thrown-together design (though I recognise that budget's don't always allow for architectural flights of fancy!)

Similarly, modern elephant houses demand large column-free spaces, which means long-span roofs and significant volume of space to enclose. There are two approaches: the bog standard (Chester) or the bespoke (Cologne, Copenhagen). As to which you prefer, is again a matter of personal taste, but I for one hope that zoos never lose the ambition to commission inspirational architecture.

Lessons can and should be learned from bad design, so continuous improvement should be the norm.
 
You have outdone yourself zooplantman. That video showing the ape house."wow" Who would have thought!! I bet the designers and many thought it was the best thing since sliced bread!! Was sliced bread even around then:p
 
Zoos Architecture

:)Wow! This Forum is very helpfull for me ,because
I really want to have experience in this topic (such as: zoo architect or zoo planer). Right now, I still studying in master landscape architecture, after i did my bachelor in architecture. So, after i will find some architecture / landscape architecture company that have relation with animal (ex:zoo). anybody have suggestion for me?
THANKS!:)
 
I'm just wondering how Edinburgh Zoo's Budongo Trail would fit into this then. It's an absolutely stunning building with three indoor 'on display' area's which each have different substrates, climbing frames and different mixes of temperature and humidity. There is also an off show area and 2 'on display' research pods. The outdoor area is huge with the original climbing frame linked in to a new even bigger very complex frame, a running river and planted with all sorts of plant including things such as wild garlic. All the indoor sections are linked by tunnels at different hieghts giving the chimps so much choice it is possible to visit and not see a single chimp. It currently houses only 11 chimps with plans to expand and breed. The capacity is fo up to about 40 chimps.

On the visitor side there are interactive displays explaining a lot about chimp behaviour (I'd say everything but I am convinced we are still learning), a 12 seat board room which is available for hire, and a big state of the art lecture theatre which shows film of the work done in the Budongo Forest Conservation Station in Uganda. It also gets used for some evening talks as well.

Total cost £5.6 million. Everyone I've heard talk about it have commented how wonderful it is for the chimps! So is it a case that zoo architecture should only be 'bigger is better' if the species to be kept in the enclosure would suit a larger enclosure. Perhaps, as we learn more about the different animals kept in zoos, enclosure design should be about most suitable for the animal which makes the animal more interesting to watch and observe, assuming you can see it.

Personally I've always felt that a good enclosure is one where the animal can display natural behaviours. If the animal looks relaxed, calm, or even if you can't see the animal, it's probably a good enclosure. After all, my experience of zoo is that unless there is a sign that says "this exhibit is empty" there is something there.
 
In relation to Buildings in the zoo, Gerald Durrell stated in his TV series "The Stationary Ark" that in his opinion the architect was the most dangerous animal in the zoo, and he relates a story of an enclosure designed by an architect that - had it been built - had no door into the enclosure meaning that once completed there would be no way of getting the animals into it (or for staff to go in and service it).

Someone also stated (probably Durrell) that one of the main problems between zoos and traditional architects is that zoos need a building that is functional, preferabley being able to service different species, and able to be removed or renovated. Architects, on the other hand, are creating a piece of art that is a testament to their imagination and ingenuity, something that will last, and architect classses of the future will look at Joe Bloggs' body of work and be inspired. (Think of the Guggenheim, Eiffel Tower, Sydney Opera House etc.)

Attitudes in zoos have changed in the last 30 or so years, but some of the old ideas still persist with some people.

:p

Hix
 
About Budongo - it is certainly very good facility for research and apes, but I was disappointed how unnatural and ugly it is. Ropes, poles, stone and metal.

On the other hand, I am a bit afraid about Dutch zoos who use only natural materials. I wonder how long exhibits in Rotterdam zoo or Gaiapark will last before rotting into nothing?
 
The originator of this thread mentioned not only "bigger" architecture but also "more expensive." I think this is equally problematic (although I agree with those here that ugly buildings and unnatural exhibits are a problem). It seems to me that some exhibits are just so outrageously expensive, I don't see how to justify them. Best example is San Diego and Los Angeles elephant exhibits both coming in at $42 million. I guess I am naive about construction costs, but I don't see how anything can cost that much.

Critics of zoos argue that these huge sums would do a lot more for animals if they were donated to groups like WWF or Nature Conservancy. I think they have a point (although they miss the point that the money was raised specifically for the zoo and would not exist if it weren't for the zoo project). I know many of you do not agree with what I am about to say, but I feel zoos should have mostly outdoor exhibits that fit their climate. That means here in the U.S. that northern zoos should have cold climate animals (and NOT have gorillas, etc) and southern zoos should have warm climate animals (and NOT have snow leopards, etc).
 
That's intriguing Steve - was he automatically anti-zoo?
According to the blurb on the book jacket he began as a student keeper at Jersey Zoo and also worked at Marwell Zoo. Apart from that I don't know much about him.
 
Zooplantman said:
An interesting article on zoo architectural history, leading up to Copenhagen elephant house.

The Smart Set: The Elephant in the Room - May 15, 2009

Particularly interesting (to us, anyway) is this film of the Bauhaus style in the London Zoo int he 30s:

YouTube - Film Preview: The New Architecture & the London Zoo, 1936
Click to expand...

Great article but the video was a knock-out! Scary to watch but oh so interesting! The 1930s language: "hygiene" etc. The description of that horrible but modernistic and "functional" prison for the gorillas.

Le Corbusier would have marvelled... "The building as a machine"....

Priceless!
 
I often wonder what zoochatters of the future will say about exhibits built in this era. Will they call them cruel and out-dated? On the one hand, the Gorilla habitat at Woodland Park is still holding up after thirty years, but on the other, there are plenty of exhibits that do not. It is something that I often think about, as our knowledge of animals increases and changes, will exhibits like Budongo and the new Elephant exhibits at LA and San Diego be seen as animal prisons? An interesting sidenote is that, if what I have said is the case, how on earth will zoos find the money to keep building mega mega exhibits, I guess it will be alright as long as there is not a recession ;).
 
@redpanda: I agree with you 100%!:) It is always amazing to me that in 1979 the Woodland Park Zoo opened the world's first ever naturalistic gorilla habitat, and in the 30 years since then more and more zoos have demolished the bars and ugly mesh that was once present in great ape exhibits. These days establishments like the Pittsburgh Zoo can have a gorilla enclosure that is an acre in size but is justifiably criticized for its lack of climbing structures or other enrichment for the apes. If Pittsburgh had opened that enclosure 31 years ago it would have been the greatest gorilla exhibit in the world, but now an acre-sized field of grass is simply not good enough.

Elephants in zoos are another great example. In just a few years from today the United States will have 25 elephant exhibits that are 3 acres in size or LARGER. Exhibits that have an acre paddock are now deemed too small and insufficient for the world's largest land mammal. AZA and many others constantly complained about the lack of world class elephant habitats in zoos and all of a sudden there are countless top notch habitats at many zoos in the U.S. One day the one-acre paddocks will be extinct, and then 3 acres will suddenly become too small. Where does it all end? I'm just glad that there are truly exceptional zoos out there that build spacious, naturalistic exhibits, and the era of bars, concrete and metal is gradually being forced into oblivion.
 
snowleopard said:
@redpanda: I agree with you 100%!:) It is always amazing to me that in 1979 the Woodland Park Zoo opened the world's first ever naturalistic gorilla habitat, and in the 30 years since then more and more zoos have demolished the bars and ugly mesh that was once present in great ape exhibits. These days establishments like the Pittsburgh Zoo can have a gorilla enclosure that is an acre in size but is justifiably criticized for its lack of climbing structures or other enrichment for the apes. If Pittsburgh had opened that enclosure 31 years ago it would have been the greatest gorilla exhibit in the world, but now an acre-sized field of grass is simply not good enough.

Elephants in zoos are another great example. In just a few years from today the United States will have 25 elephant exhibits that are 3 acres in size or LARGER. Exhibits that have an acre paddock are now deemed too small and insufficient for the world's largest land mammal. AZA and many others constantly complained about the lack of world class elephant habitats in zoos and all of a sudden there are countless top notch habitats at many zoos in the U.S. One day the one-acre paddocks will be extinct, and then 3 acres will suddenly become too small. Where does it all end? I'm just glad that there are truly exceptional zoos out there that build spacious, naturalistic exhibits, and the era of bars, concrete and metal is gradually being forced into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I think that elephants will probably be an excellent example of this. Whereas for most species, a naturalistic exhibit can be built which blurs the enclosure's boundaries, this is very difficult for elephants so bigger will probably continue to mean better.

For many species however, I think that our modern enclosures will continue to suffice well into the future. That is, of course, unless a new trend comes along which makes landscape immersion look out-dated. Then maybe we will look back on the "landscape immersion" era as we know look back on the white tile or iron bar eras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top