What makes a major zoo?
- Thread starter birdsandbats
- Start date
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
First thing we can agree on
I could understand giraffe but I’d say it’s a stretch
They are both subpar holdings for monkeys, but I went for the comparison between the Ape Center and Tropic World because the biggest blemish on Brookfield's record is the all-indoor ape exhibits and there is a strong contrast in how apes are displayed, whereas both facilities display all monkey species (aside Macaque Forest) completely indoors.
This discussion did remind me how interesting it is that Tropic World and Helen Brach Primate House no longer contain any overlapping monkey species.
The 31st Street Hoofstock Yards are pretty barren, empty and dusty, all are basic squares. The Camel-Zebra Area has a lot of similarly boring spaces but a few that are larger and lushly planted, particularly the camel exhibit. Like the monkey comparison, I don't consider either to be especially great exhibits.
The southern exhibits at Pepper Family Wildlife Center include decent exhibits for Canadian lynx and red panda and a disappointing snow leopard enclosure I acknowledged some when discussing them as a species Brookfield handles better; this is overlooking that Pepper Family Wildlife Center is a fantastic lion exhibit and easily better than many, many lion exhibits out there.
I'd like you to elaborate on this point. Brookfield has more species total, that's objectively true, but how many species do they have that Lincoln Park does not hold a close equivalent species to? I fully believe there are some, but I have a suspicion you have more species in mind than I would think to name.
I welcome hearing more of which spots you like then. Not sarcasm, I do mean that earnestly. I intentionally included Habitat Africa - The Forest and Australia House, two of my favorite exhibits, to illustrate what exhibits I felt Brookfield did better - excluding those already mentioned I'm curious what you might rank highly.
The giraffe and painted dog are two of the biggest stars of each respective complex, and the klipspringer are significant to both as well. All three occupy significant exhibit space. They also both include free-flying birds and mongoose, although they use different species, adding to the sense of similarity. The fact both complexes include a kopje shows they are clearly trying to emulate the same environment at least part of the time. They also both originally included warthog and at one point or another held red river hog in those enclosures, although the Savanna no longer has a suid. You can favor Habitat Africa but they seem pretty comparable to me at least.
If we focus on having a directly alike species list, then your comparison between Tropic World and the Primate House is undermined.
I think this is open for debate although I could be convinced to agree. Brookfield has a wonderful viewing shelter but the ugly steps really hurt the visuals for the exhibit and it's not very spacious. I wouldn't be surprised if the land area favored Brookfield either.
This post is probably making it sound like I think Brookfield is horrible and Lincoln Park isn't, and I regret that, I don't feel that way, and I also want to add there's nothing wrong with anyone having a preference for one facility or the other, including birdsnbats. I apologize if any of this is coming off hostile because that isn't my intention. I just think they are pretty comparable facilities in quality based on drawbacks that largely even out (each has an ape exclusive to one another, both have monkeys indoors, both have mediocre hoofstock exhibits, open layout vs tight layout, more species vs higher quality exhibits, etc.) and Lincoln Park can outdo the quality of a lot of current exhibits.
Tropical Forests and Gateway to Africa will do a massive job of helping Brookfield stand out again when they are completed, not only against Lincoln Park but other regional facilities, but as wild boar has reminded me, it's best not to give credit before it's been due.
My favorite exhibits at Brookfield are The Swamp, the Fragile Desert, Habitat Africa!, the Australia House, and The Living Coast.
Tropic World is subpar for the Great Apes. No argument there. But for all of the other animals it has it's truly an excellent exhibit. That's so much space, both floorspace and climbing space. Plus it incorporates actual weather. For some of those species, I'd say there no better exhibit in the country. The biggest issue is that it's understocked.
Note I did say that a more apt comparison to Regenstien African Journey is all of Habitat Africa!. There are no longer Klipspringers at Brookfield.
While Lincoln Park and Brookfield do share many of their major star species, where Brookfield truly shines is with its smaller species, especially their birds and ecotherms. For many of these species, there truly are no equivalents at Lincoln Park. And, frankly, their collection of these species is why I enjoy Brookfield so much.
I absolutely love that Brookfield doesn't shy away from small species, and incorporates them into almost every part of the zoo.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
How does Brookfield’s bird habitats count as good? The only one that was DECENT was tropic world.
Brookfield's bird collection is good. But frankly, it's exhibits aren't bad, either. The big aviary in Feathers and Scales is pretty cool. Tropic World is not a good exhibit, the birds are too difficult to see.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
To me none of the bird habitats were impressive nor large. What rarities do they have anyway?
What impresses me about Brookfield is less the rarity count but rather the size of the collection. However some that stick out would be Wood Stork, Greater Prairie-Chicken, Baltimore Oriole, Veery, Common Bulbul, Red-vented Bulbul, Gray Gull, House Finch, Greater Roadrunner, Green Homeycreeper, Namaqua Dove, Wattled Curassow, Eastern Paradise-Whydah, Paradise Tanager and Wonga Pigeon.
Last edited:
Just to briefly touch on the Brookfield vs. Lincoln Park debate:
Brookfield is closer to my heart and has seen some very positive developments in recent years after a fairly sleepy period in the 2010s, but I find Lincoln Park to be a more rewarding and cohesive experience overall. When comparing exhibit quality between the collections however, I'd argue Brookfield actually does better with most of the larger megafauna. Lincoln Park obviously does much better with great apes and lions. Beyond that however, exhibits for the overlapping ABCs between the two collections are either fairly even in quality (polar bear, rhino, zebra, camel, seal, penguin) or definitely better at Brookfield (giraffe, gibbon, snow leopard, pygmy hippo, painted dog, wolf, kangaroo). Brookfield also has a much more extensive collection across the board and is one of the few major US zoos fighting against homogenization and actively bringing in rarer, more obscure species frequently.
What sets them apart however is general presentation and upkeep. Brookfield is dealing with a backlog of infrastructure upgrades, crumbling pathways and parking lots, and lots of empty/underutilized space. They're addressing it and it's heading a positive direction, but it will take a while to rectify these issues fully. While the enclosures overall tend to be larger than what's provided at Lincoln Park (once again lions and gorillas exempt), there are also some less impressive areas and nothing besides the wolves and parts of Tropic World can really be considered world-class.
Meanwhile, Lincoln Park doesn't have any real low points -- even the primate house and basic but otherwise perfectly fine series of hoofstock paddocks aren't bad. The landscaping is better, the pathways are cleaner, infrastructure is in better shape, guest amenities are a lot more professional in appearance, etc. It just looks and feels nicer, plus the city atmosphere adds a unique charm that can't be replicated by its suburban neighbor. For a 150+ year old zoo, it's among one of the best maintained facilities I've visited. Lincoln Park Zoo has never been better than it is right now, while Brookfield still has plenty of untapped potential waiting to be realized.
Brookfield is closer to my heart and has seen some very positive developments in recent years after a fairly sleepy period in the 2010s, but I find Lincoln Park to be a more rewarding and cohesive experience overall. When comparing exhibit quality between the collections however, I'd argue Brookfield actually does better with most of the larger megafauna. Lincoln Park obviously does much better with great apes and lions. Beyond that however, exhibits for the overlapping ABCs between the two collections are either fairly even in quality (polar bear, rhino, zebra, camel, seal, penguin) or definitely better at Brookfield (giraffe, gibbon, snow leopard, pygmy hippo, painted dog, wolf, kangaroo). Brookfield also has a much more extensive collection across the board and is one of the few major US zoos fighting against homogenization and actively bringing in rarer, more obscure species frequently.
What sets them apart however is general presentation and upkeep. Brookfield is dealing with a backlog of infrastructure upgrades, crumbling pathways and parking lots, and lots of empty/underutilized space. They're addressing it and it's heading a positive direction, but it will take a while to rectify these issues fully. While the enclosures overall tend to be larger than what's provided at Lincoln Park (once again lions and gorillas exempt), there are also some less impressive areas and nothing besides the wolves and parts of Tropic World can really be considered world-class.
Meanwhile, Lincoln Park doesn't have any real low points -- even the primate house and basic but otherwise perfectly fine series of hoofstock paddocks aren't bad. The landscaping is better, the pathways are cleaner, infrastructure is in better shape, guest amenities are a lot more professional in appearance, etc. It just looks and feels nicer, plus the city atmosphere adds a unique charm that can't be replicated by its suburban neighbor. For a 150+ year old zoo, it's among one of the best maintained facilities I've visited. Lincoln Park Zoo has never been better than it is right now, while Brookfield still has plenty of untapped potential waiting to be realized.
Brookfield still has klipspringers. They were just off-exhibit for some months while work was being done on their enclosure.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
I think the main reason I thought Brookfield had no bird that were rare is because of Toledo being my local zoo
the only birds on that list that interest be are the oriole, prairie chicken (aquired after my visit), wood stork (soon) and roadrunner (put on a show for me).I will probably love the Swamp with the recent changes and look forward to seeing them in person. I've mentioned Australia and the Forest. The Living Coast and Desert's Edge used to be big favorites but I have been cooling a little.
This is the one issue I feel forced to just agree to disagree. I used to love Tropic World but much more than any other building in the zoo, I can't really stand it at this point.
Brookfield has always marketed both Habitat Africa habitats as separate exhibits for whatever reason. I think the intent was that after the never-completed future phases it would be unified and more cohesive as a region, similar to what Gateway to Africa seems set to do.
There are klipspringers. I'm not sure the situation but I know I have asked and been told they are still on site.
This is something I enjoy about Brookfield a lot as well. I don't believe it "tips the scales" for me is as it does you but I consider it a positive aspect of the facility. Chester Zoo also does this to wonderful effect.
I do think you and I are approaching this quite differently though. You are valuing each species as a species, whereas for the purpose of this conversation, I am trying to generalize the broad categories, which is more equalizing, especially taking into consideration the collection turnover and that some of the smaller exhibits aren't as effective even if I like the species involved.
I agree on a lot of this, although I tend to let the great apes and lions tip the balance and view a few of the latter as the former, but I don't want to quibble on the quality of each exhibit.
I find this all very agreeable. The core thing for me is that "doesn't really have any real low points" to me weighs heavier right now. I am extremely optimistic about Brookfield's future and feel there is a lot to love on the current campus, but I still feel it has weak points right now, enough to even out the points of praise, but I truly think within a few years all of that'll be a thing of the past. Tropical Forests is set to tackle one of the zoo's biggest blemishes and hopefully be for BZ what Pepper Family Wildlife Center was for LPZ, and Gateway to Africa has even greater potential.
Glad to have this confirmed.
Persephone
Well-Known Member
I can’t tell if this is a Brookfield venting / defense thread or a commentary on what makes a zoo great. If it’s the former, I’ve said all I care to say. It’s probably my favorite of the Chicago area institutions but it’s a narrow lead and a matter of preference.
If it’s the latter… I’ve been to 70+ AZA accredited institutions, which is a lot more than the general public and a whole heck of a lot less than some people here. I think it gives me enough of a sample size, though, even if I’ve only been to one “world class” zoo.
I think most large city zoos are perfectly fine. Usually a bit generic with a quirk or two, but most people don’t travel for these things so having the ABCs and a few rarity. Obviously it varies in quality. I would put Cincinnati, Nashville, and Detroit are on the high end of “big city zoo” tier with Pittsburgh and Buffalo on the lower end. They all have their highs and lows but I wouldn’t recommend any but the most hardcore of zoo nerds travel more than three hours for it.
Then there are the destination zoos. They seriously excel in at least one thing or another or are actively courting zoo nerds. Maybe there are low lows but the highs are worth it. I’d throw Kansas City, North Carolina, Columbus, Minnesota, and St. Louis in here, Minnesota sadly on the low end and Columbus at the high end, maybe even moving up a tier.
And then, yeah, the world class ones. They’re just built different. Rarities, exceptional exhibits, the sheer amount of things to do. Only two I’ve been to are Henry Doorly and maybe DAK if we count it as a zoo. I’d personally put it more in with the safari parks as its most notable element is the 100-ish acre safari ride.
Some small to mid-size city zoos are plausibly major. Binder Park comes to mind. Fort Wayne, Mesker Park, and Riverbanks are all in smaller cities and I would put them as at least big city tier, if on the lower end. Some larger city zoos punch well below their weight. Buffalo. But most of these I wouldn’t go out of my way for.
Specialty collections are harder to map. Like, I adore the International Crane Foundation headquarters but it’s not really trying to be a full zoo. Something like St. Augustine Alligator Farm apparently is. We’ll see how I feel about it whenever Florida stops threatening trans people with jail time for using public bathrooms.
Aquariums are also tricky because almost all of them are very much reliant on tourism dollars and chains abound. Georgia Aquarium is the only one I’ve been to I would put in the world class tier with Shedd and Tennessee filling in the destination tier. Ripley’s and Newport are probably at the high end of the major city equivalent with South Carolina on the lower end. I do not know what to do with the North Carolina aquariums as they are good but not actually aimed at tourists.
Safari Parks / Theme Parks have their own tier list. I haven’t really been to enough to have particularly comprehensive opinions.
Good local species collections usually have excellent exhibits but a limited collection so… I don’t know if I could count them as major. I’m glad they exist, though.
If it’s the latter… I’ve been to 70+ AZA accredited institutions, which is a lot more than the general public and a whole heck of a lot less than some people here. I think it gives me enough of a sample size, though, even if I’ve only been to one “world class” zoo.
I think most large city zoos are perfectly fine. Usually a bit generic with a quirk or two, but most people don’t travel for these things so having the ABCs and a few rarity. Obviously it varies in quality. I would put Cincinnati, Nashville, and Detroit are on the high end of “big city zoo” tier with Pittsburgh and Buffalo on the lower end. They all have their highs and lows but I wouldn’t recommend any but the most hardcore of zoo nerds travel more than three hours for it.
Then there are the destination zoos. They seriously excel in at least one thing or another or are actively courting zoo nerds. Maybe there are low lows but the highs are worth it. I’d throw Kansas City, North Carolina, Columbus, Minnesota, and St. Louis in here, Minnesota sadly on the low end and Columbus at the high end, maybe even moving up a tier.
And then, yeah, the world class ones. They’re just built different. Rarities, exceptional exhibits, the sheer amount of things to do. Only two I’ve been to are Henry Doorly and maybe DAK if we count it as a zoo. I’d personally put it more in with the safari parks as its most notable element is the 100-ish acre safari ride.
Some small to mid-size city zoos are plausibly major. Binder Park comes to mind. Fort Wayne, Mesker Park, and Riverbanks are all in smaller cities and I would put them as at least big city tier, if on the lower end. Some larger city zoos punch well below their weight. Buffalo. But most of these I wouldn’t go out of my way for.
Specialty collections are harder to map. Like, I adore the International Crane Foundation headquarters but it’s not really trying to be a full zoo. Something like St. Augustine Alligator Farm apparently is. We’ll see how I feel about it whenever Florida stops threatening trans people with jail time for using public bathrooms.
Aquariums are also tricky because almost all of them are very much reliant on tourism dollars and chains abound. Georgia Aquarium is the only one I’ve been to I would put in the world class tier with Shedd and Tennessee filling in the destination tier. Ripley’s and Newport are probably at the high end of the major city equivalent with South Carolina on the lower end. I do not know what to do with the North Carolina aquariums as they are good but not actually aimed at tourists.
Safari Parks / Theme Parks have their own tier list. I haven’t really been to enough to have particularly comprehensive opinions.
Good local species collections usually have excellent exhibits but a limited collection so… I don’t know if I could count them as major. I’m glad they exist, though.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
No I bring this up with no bad faith, but to compare the 401 species at Brookfield to the 248 species at Toledo and say that their collection isn't impressive is quite a hot take here! If I might ask, what do you don't find impressive of the collection at Brookfield? I'm just curious, but I do think that Brookfield balances well a collection with the typical ABC animals and some rarities. I might get why their exhibits aren't the best, but I do think that the collection at Broofield is what it makes it normally at the top US zoo lists (not to say that the collection is the only thin that it's considered, but it's a strong point for the institution).
Hard disagree from me about Detroit. I would agree, as someone who regularly visits, that it’s not a Top 10 or even Top 15 US Zoo. I would disagree, however, that the rest of the zoo besides the PPCC and NACC isn’t good. I wouldn’t say there’s a single bad habitat among the outdoor animal enclosures, even if some could definitely be improved. The red panda, polar bear, tiger, chimpanzee, and warthog enclosures, just to give a random selection are easily among the best I’ve ever seen for their respective species. Though not as exceptional, perhaps, as the penguin and amphibian facilities, the walk-through aviary and reptile house are pretty damn good too. Yes, not all of the animals are easy to see at all times, but you could argue that this speaks to the zoo’s commitment to animal welfare, as many of the enclosures are roomy and offer the animals lots of hiding opportunities for when they would rather not be looked at. Yes, the collection isn’t exceptional, but I still think it’s decent. There aren’t a ton of rarities, sure, but AZA facilities with wolverines, sea otters, and chinstrap penguins, for example, aren’t exactly a dime a dozen (and apparently bush dogs are back now, too). The animal roster is overall pretty solid in my opinion, with a few noticeable gaffes like only two cat species, very few smaller mammals, and almost no fish (the new KidZone that’s being constructed should help fix this last one somewhat with a stingray touch tank). At present, the zoo has three bear species, eight primates including three lemurs, three mustelids, three ratites, and five penguins, to name some taxa I consider well-represented in the collection. This is just my opinion and I’m not saying it’s superior to yours by any metric. I just wanted to say my piece.
Last edited:
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Brookfield has many holes. That’s their issue. Toledo has a rather complete selection on the other hand, maybe lions but I’d argue that the zoo is pretty much complete.
I’d have to agree with this, Detroit is steadily growing in many ways. As for your takes, some I would disapprove upon. As for top 10-15 zoo I would agree upon, but with exhibit quality I’d say Detroit is top 15 but in the early twenties overall. I’d argue the only “bad” habitat is the new sloth Bear one which is mediocre at most. Detroit is the only zoo I’ve been to without a bad exhibit (quality). I’d say the ape habitats are now among the best in America (Bronx, Omaha, DAK, and Atlanta for gorillas and Dallas and KC for chimps) with next to be a dayroom renovation. You can’t really complain with the aviary or reptile house, both are pretty good to me. Bush Dogs are here, she said they can be seen in the flamingo habitat (bts cages). As for holes, Detroit’s can easily be fixed. Small Mammal House and then maybe a koi pond. Pretty easy imao. A major zoo should put quality over quantity. Brookfield struggles with in both of those.
I didn't say they weren't good enclosures at Detroit, I said they weren't good exhibits. They don't effectively allow the visitors to see the animals much of the time. I also stand by the grounds being very poorly laid out, with lots of walking to see what ultimately ends up being very few animals.
I don't think Detroit is a bad zoo, not by any means. It's actually a pretty good zoo. But is not an excellent zoo and many zoos with a far smaller size surpass it.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
So the lack of ABC animals is problem with the collection? If so, I do think they have the major recognisable species, except for the elephant. Even then, a collection with less ABC animals shouldn't be a problem if they do it right.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Not abc species, a complete collection of species. Like how Detroit is lacking cats, small mammals, fish and inverts. Their reptile collection is pretty “meh” and their quality of habitats is pretty low. Maybe just 3 habitats are impressive. African Forest, Wolf Woods and the Swamp. If I feel nice, I might add Australia but I’d say it’s rather boring.
Panda_Fan
Well-Known Member
Didn't read it but I have to say that I'm a vit confused. The zoo doesn't struggle with quantity, as they have a great collection, and yes they don't have the prettiest habitats, but I would say that the tiger terrace at Toledo is worst than any exhibit at Brookfield.
I do agree that some exhibits don't stand out, but we're talking here about the collection. I wouldn't say that 74 species of reptiles are a "meh", it's not the biggest number, but it's not bad either.
Source:Brookfield Zoo list of species on exhibit October 2024 [Brookfield Zoo] - ZooChat
Last edited:
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
While comparing, Toledo definitely wins in every category except for big cats and wolves. I’d say Brookfield’s cat row is worse. 5 small cat grottos compared to 2 habitats combined for tigers and 1 for cougars. While Toledo’s isn’t good by any means but when compared to Brookfield they are a lot better. As for the reptiles, they have no rarities and not a single good reptile house. All species are spread apart and all of the species are relatively common.