Architectural heritage: a reminder of the past.
- Thread starter Panda_Fan
- Start date
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
As for Madrid zoo, I've been to the zoo a couple of times in the past and it's sad to see that the zoo can't improve that mich due to the architectural heritage. There's even word that the town hall wants to change the habitat of the pandas and elephants due to the exhibit theming, but it's not solid. Such a same that a zoo with such an impressive collection has to get through with this.
Strathmorezoo
Well-Known Member
Obviously, Dudley Zoo, like Whipsnade and London Zoo's have Lubetkin buildings and animal enclosures,which when first built, were regarded as the way forward. Unfortunately, because they are protected, over the years are showing degeneration and therefore to try and improve them is very difficult. This then creates criticism of the zoo .
S. Venaticus
Well-Known Member
Well I think that a historical city zoo should try to preserve their architectural heritage. However they should look at those outdated buildings not as a waste of space but as something that can be used for reasons often quite different from the original purpose.
A good example of this is Schönbrunn Zoo in Vienna and the menagerie of paris, where old buildings that are inadequate nowadays for their original animals have been repurposed for smaller species.
London unfortunately, alongside with probably most old NA zoos are examples to avoid, at least according to my opinion. London zoo has a lot of old and protected buildings which just sit there and aren't being utilised to their fullest. As for NA zoos they mostly lack older buildings due to a tendency to demolish the old and build on top of it.
I should say that I don't think zoos that are more recently built need to give the illusion of having a long history through old looking buildings, but when it comes to older zoos preserving and repurposing older buildings is imho the way forward. I don't think historical structures should be demolished since the history that is preserved through these buildings gives a unique atmosphere to each zoo.
A good example of this is Schönbrunn Zoo in Vienna and the menagerie of paris, where old buildings that are inadequate nowadays for their original animals have been repurposed for smaller species.
London unfortunately, alongside with probably most old NA zoos are examples to avoid, at least according to my opinion. London zoo has a lot of old and protected buildings which just sit there and aren't being utilised to their fullest. As for NA zoos they mostly lack older buildings due to a tendency to demolish the old and build on top of it.
I should say that I don't think zoos that are more recently built need to give the illusion of having a long history through old looking buildings, but when it comes to older zoos preserving and repurposing older buildings is imho the way forward. I don't think historical structures should be demolished since the history that is preserved through these buildings gives a unique atmosphere to each zoo.
Cobi
Well-Known Member
Is that because the theming they added compromises the original concrete/brutalist architecture from the 70s?
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is the case for both habitats.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
The problem with Madrid zoo is that all exhibits are protected, and because so there is one solution to the problem, and that is to phase out the species that don't have the adequate space from the zoo in change for a small animal, which in madrid case I can't see it going anywhere. If Madrid started to lose the a,b,c animals the visitors numbers will fall dramatically and that will hurt the zoo even more. People should start protesting to the town hall, because they're the only ones that can make a change. Madrid zoo is clearly capable of building good habitats like the exhibits for orangutans, pandas, giraffes, elephants, gorillas etc. While not the best, they're an improvement over the other exhibits.
In my opinion almost everything post war, should not be protected that way, they are not particulary unique, have bad hisbandry, and just look bad
Haliaeetus
Well-Known Member
I know the same problem with the Jardin des Plantes de Paris, where everything is protected as historical monument. If the removal of many large ABC species has been part of the solution, many buildings are outdated for animal husbandry, not to mention the heavy iron bars around every enclosure, unpleasant for current guests.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
Madrid zoo has quite a problem with a lot of activists. My friends over Spain tell me that with the outdated exhibit and with the dolphin shows they're getting a lot of negative backlash. It's big problem and one I'm very sad about.
Rizz Carlton
Well-Known Member
In Surabaya Zoo, a lot of the older architecture of the zoo is labelled as the zoo's historical site and is never filled with animals nor demolished. This are prevalent in Indonesian zoos especially those that are already established since the Dutch East Indies and early post-independence era, including statues and plaques.
In some cases, the zoo itself is very old and almost entirely consist of older exhibits and layout as well, making revitalization very slow and costly. This can be seen in Ragunan Zoo in Jakarta, where most, if not all, of the exhibits dates back to decades prior
In some cases, the zoo itself is very old and almost entirely consist of older exhibits and layout as well, making revitalization very slow and costly. This can be seen in Ragunan Zoo in Jakarta, where most, if not all, of the exhibits dates back to decades prior
Last edited:
I personally think architectural heritage is what makes many zoos unique and if used right it can greatly enhance the overall atmosphere. Many of my favourite zoos have found ways to use their heritage to create great modern enclosures or to create a very pleasant park landscape in which the zoo stands. If done right using the heritage can lift a zoo to the next level, but you need some creativity (and money) to do so... And such zoos shouldn't be afraid of making tough choices when necessary...
Zoo Madrid has one of the most extensive ABC collections in Europe, only surpassed by Beauval and Pairi Daiza, which are both zoos which aren't limited by space, money or monuments... Basically every city zoo with monumental buildings has had to downsize its collection of large mammals. E.g. Artis has gone out of rhino, hippo, orangutan, bear, tiger and is set to lose chimpanzee and sea lion in the not so distant future. But it hasn't impacted attendance at all and many city zoos show that you can reach high attendance with only a subset of popular species. And zoos like Nuremberg and Rostock reached higher attendance after getting rid of elephants, because they could invest in the animals they wanted to keep. A full set of ABCs is never a requirement for visitors.....
The Jardin des Plantes is a pretty unique case I would say, where they don't even try to look like a modern zoo. Their whole charm (at least for me) is that they are a sort of living open air museum of zoos. It might not always be pleasing and many enclosures are on the smaller side of acceptable. But I think they are doing a tremendous job overall with what they have, resulting in something with a unique atmosphere.
Zoo Madrid has one of the most extensive ABC collections in Europe, only surpassed by Beauval and Pairi Daiza, which are both zoos which aren't limited by space, money or monuments... Basically every city zoo with monumental buildings has had to downsize its collection of large mammals. E.g. Artis has gone out of rhino, hippo, orangutan, bear, tiger and is set to lose chimpanzee and sea lion in the not so distant future. But it hasn't impacted attendance at all and many city zoos show that you can reach high attendance with only a subset of popular species. And zoos like Nuremberg and Rostock reached higher attendance after getting rid of elephants, because they could invest in the animals they wanted to keep. A full set of ABCs is never a requirement for visitors.....
The Jardin des Plantes is a pretty unique case I would say, where they don't even try to look like a modern zoo. Their whole charm (at least for me) is that they are a sort of living open air museum of zoos. It might not always be pleasing and many enclosures are on the smaller side of acceptable. But I think they are doing a tremendous job overall with what they have, resulting in something with a unique atmosphere.
I feel London is particularly hamstrung by buildings that are regarded as architecturally or historically important but at now no longer suitable for holding the types of species they once held. Particularly as space is such a premium for the zoo. The Lubetkin Penguin Pool is basically unusable as an exhibit these days but still has to be maintained. The Casson Pavilion is in terms of space a very inefficient way of holding red river hogs and babirusa but there are not many better options that would maintain the structure and allow species to be housed in modern standards.
When constructing a zoo building, in my opinion, there is an argument for deliberately making it uninteresting from an architectural point of view. That way there won't be issues when it comes to updating, modifying or even demolishing it in the future as standards evolve.
There is a second category of architectural heritage in zoos and that is where the building in question pre-dates the zoo. Dudley Castle is one interesting example. The zoo was built in the castle grounds. A more common scenario of this, in the UK at least, is a zoo or safari park being opened in the grounds of a manor house or stately home. Longleat, Woburn, Cotswold Wildlife Park, Marwell, Howletts and Port Lympne all being examples of such.
When constructing a zoo building, in my opinion, there is an argument for deliberately making it uninteresting from an architectural point of view. That way there won't be issues when it comes to updating, modifying or even demolishing it in the future as standards evolve.
There is a second category of architectural heritage in zoos and that is where the building in question pre-dates the zoo. Dudley Castle is one interesting example. The zoo was built in the castle grounds. A more common scenario of this, in the UK at least, is a zoo or safari park being opened in the grounds of a manor house or stately home. Longleat, Woburn, Cotswold Wildlife Park, Marwell, Howletts and Port Lympne all being examples of such.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
If madrid gave up animals like elephants, gorillas, big cats or dolphins surley the attendace of the zoo would be affected in some way. I'm not saying that the zoo would lose a lot of their visitors, but quite a few. This could have various negative effects, including the lose of giant pandas (the zoo in the past years has been strugglin a bit with the money for the pandas), and if the such ocasion occurs, the zoo would definitely have a real problem. The Madrid Zoo is in a situation in which if something happens, no matter how small, there would be a negative domino effect.
Can you back that up with any evidence? I have seen plenty of zoos going out of popular animals (often because enclosures were outdated) and it didn't affect visitor numbers at all... More important is that investment of some kind is happening at a regular basis...
And let's not get started on pandas, they are not a great long-term investment anyway:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/fu...KtHDFs_L9XGnL0EstaBB79YDCBz9pHJBdiKUqwWls3unM
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
I have both friends and family in Spain and they and people the know always tell me the same thing "If not for x animal I would rate the zoo very low/or wouldn't come again". Normaly the 'x animal' is the dolphin, elephant, etc (which are are the targets for protesters to let people know how 'bad' a zoo Madrid is).
As for the pandas, I agree with you, I know there's no evidence that pandas help the zoo to gain many visitors if it's not the first year of the zoo to have pandas, but even then, it would be strange that the zoo with the logo of said animal and such a history with the animal didn't have the animal. It would be like a missing piece.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Just curious but what is your local zoo?
I agree that London is particularly hamstrung by its old buildings, with honourable exceptions like the Blackburn Pavilion.
However, perhaps this heritage has encouraged the new building philosophy there, which is essentially to build new structures with a 20 year life span rather than the architecturally significant buildings of the last few centuries.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
@USZOOfan42, my home zoo is SDZ.