That's quite the distance from the zoo you initially called your home zoo before changing your mind and editing your response
Architectural heritage: a reminder of the past.
- Thread starter Panda_Fan
- Start date
That's quite the distance from the zoo you initially called your home zoo before changing your mind and editing your response
An interesting exception is Rotterdam zoo, which has several listed buildings, including the palm house but receives money from the government to preserve it.
Architectural heritage can, indeed, be a drawback for zoos. From what I see, often such buildings work well if the zoo hires a sensible architect and is open to switch to completely different species and design than the original one. Eye-catching architecture does not work well when redone into a naturalistic modern exhibit, because the old architecture and vegetation clash. But they could be creatively changed. Zoo Vienna turned one cat house inside out - visitors stand inside a former cage and cheetahs wander on the space outside.
Architectural heritage can, indeed, be a drawback for zoos. From what I see, often such buildings work well if the zoo hires a sensible architect and is open to switch to completely different species and design than the original one. Eye-catching architecture does not work well when redone into a naturalistic modern exhibit, because the old architecture and vegetation clash. But they could be creatively changed. Zoo Vienna turned one cat house inside out - visitors stand inside a former cage and cheetahs wander on the space outside.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
I lived in Madrid for some time in my childhood, and then moved to the U.S. So, yes, in a way I consider that my home zoo is SD and MadridThat's quite the distance from the zoo you initially called your home zoo before changing your mind and editing your response
.
I lived in Madrid for some time in my childhood, and then moved to the U.S. So, yes, in a way I consider that my home zoo is SD and Madrid
That doesn't explain why you initially said Cincinnati though
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
You got me there. I really didn't want to say where I lived, that's way I put cincy, but then I thought to myself that liyng wasn't the way so I changed it. Sorry!That doesn't explain why you initially said Cincinnati though
Now that things have been cleard out I want the thread to stay in it's course, if anyone has more question I'll consider posting a introduction thread to introduce myself.
S. Venaticus
Well-Known Member
Since they have all those exhibits, why isn't attendance higher? Or at least why doesn't it stay at a stable rate?
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.
Oh, I do understand the feeling. However you should probably be more positive about the situation (at least according to my experiences).
Over here there have been some major "scandals" at my "local"(not really but it is the one I consider the most local, since it's the easiest to get to) zoo. Every time there are protests, news articles, people vowing to never return and even intervention by the government but at the end of the day everything continues as normal, people come back and everything is forgotten, because it is proven that it wasn't actually the zoo's fault.
I agree with @lintworm here. You can never be sure. My local zoo has lost over the years white lions, white tigers, jaguars of both colour morphs and still (though the only evidence I have is that they continued expanding more and more, thus indicating plenty of cash) attendance seems to not have fallen. (And yes right now they do have elephants and dolphins, however the elephants are a quite recent addition and popularity was always high even before them)
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm confused and I said it, but madrid zoo has a stable rate of people, I think it has shrunken a little bit after the pandemic, not sure abou that. While yes I agree with you that there's no proof that losing recogniced animals will afect the attendace, but losing the species mentioned+the bad husbandry would be an explosive mix in my opinion. Anyway, I do think we have overexploited the Madrid zoo topic, so it's better to give it a rest for a while.
Edit: Like how this thread has popukarity, always a dream of mine that at least one of my thread had some kind of success.
Last edited:
Wanderer
Well-Known Member
This is a very interesting topic. Lately I have come to appreciate more the historical value of the zoos I'm visiting.
Someone brought up the menagerie in Jardin des Plantes in Paris, which I think is a bit of an special case in terms of historical heritage.
The place is crumbling under the weight of its history. It is severely underfunded, but even with appropriate funding I don't really see what can be done because the place is so dense, with so many historical buildings in a small land area. Some buildings are also literally falling apart, so they might have to be at least partially rebuilt identically if one wants to preserve them.
Personally I don't like that place, it is mostly unfit to keep animals and a lot of the historical buildings aren't really beautiful to look at. At the same time, they probably can't close it down because it would quickly become a squatting spot.
I think they could maybe revamp some of the buildings, and simply close the others to the public and no longer keep animals in them. That could be a nice compromise. Maybe turn the place into a birds only collection with a reduced entrance fee. But the status quo is just depressing.
Another solution might be to displace some of the buildings to a different location? I don't really know how that works practically but I know it can be done in some cases. This could help de-cluster a lot of urban zoos.
Someone brought up the menagerie in Jardin des Plantes in Paris, which I think is a bit of an special case in terms of historical heritage.
The place is crumbling under the weight of its history. It is severely underfunded, but even with appropriate funding I don't really see what can be done because the place is so dense, with so many historical buildings in a small land area. Some buildings are also literally falling apart, so they might have to be at least partially rebuilt identically if one wants to preserve them.
Personally I don't like that place, it is mostly unfit to keep animals and a lot of the historical buildings aren't really beautiful to look at. At the same time, they probably can't close it down because it would quickly become a squatting spot.
I think they could maybe revamp some of the buildings, and simply close the others to the public and no longer keep animals in them. That could be a nice compromise. Maybe turn the place into a birds only collection with a reduced entrance fee. But the status quo is just depressing.
Another solution might be to displace some of the buildings to a different location? I don't really know how that works practically but I know it can be done in some cases. This could help de-cluster a lot of urban zoos.
Haliaeetus
Well-Known Member
Most of the Ménagerie's buildings (Big Cat House, Monkey House, Rotunda...) are quite heavy, it wouldn't make sense to displace them elsewhere. That applies also to the smaller stables and pavilions for hoofstock, typical from the 19th century (especially if they are replaced by more conventional animal houses).
The Rotunda doesn't keep animals for decades (until the mid 70's there were Dromedaries, Cattle and even an Elephant !), but this empty building looks a bit depressing, even if the lawns around host a few birds and (in summer months) the Giant Tortoises.
Wanderer
Well-Known Member
Yeah I can definitely see how that would be inpractical... still an option zoos should keep in mind, especially for smaller buildings.