What are some overrated exhibit complexs?

[CMTM]

Calling the exhibit at Cleveland an orangutan "tank" is, in my opinion, an unfair analysis of their orangutan exhibit, which I felt was actually a really solid exhibit on my recent visit. Sure, having outdoor access would be nice, but by all other metrics, the orangutan exhibit at Cleveland meets or exceeds the standards for orangutan exhibits. Most notably, I noticed on my visit that four of the five orangutans were actually above the ground, utilizing the various ropes and climbing opportunities in the exhibit. This alone is huge, as way too often zoos have designed primarily horizontal orangutan exhibit, in which the animals don't have that opportunity to exhibit natural climbing behavior. I'd actually call Cleveland one of the better orangutan exhibits I've seen, with the utilization of climbing opportunities being a big part of this. As for Primates, Cats, and Aquatics, I actually felt it was a really nice exhibit, gorillas aside. The gorilla area in PCAT was certainly poor, but a lot of the other exhibits have become much better homes for some of the inhabitants, through choosing smaller primate species and combining multiple habitats into larger ones. Sure, the exhibits are far from naturalistic, but naturalism as the gold standard aesthetic is often contrary to what's best for the animals. Rather, what needs to be achieved is naturalism as a behavior- and the Cleveland exhibits are able to achieve this quite nicely (and will be able to do an even better job of it once the gorillas move to the Rain Forest expansion).

I agree with many of your points for sure. Keep in mind I visited four different facilities in 72 hours, New England Aquarium, Cleveland, Shedd, and Brookfield in that order with Shedd and Brookfield being on the same day (it was AWESOME). This led to me perhaps unfairly compare the four facilities. The Cleveland Orangutan exhibit reminded me very much of the Giant Ocean Tank at NEAQ, both were centerpiece exhibits made largely out of concrete and glass with artificial structure within. They both looked about the same size as well (tropicworld's orang area also seemed around the same size footprint wise). I understand that the Cleveland orangs do quite well in that enclosure and I certainly appreciate the vertical space, but I just feel weird about great apes being on concrete, surrounded by glass, without outdoor access. It reminded me of the green tiled cells I've seen in pictures taken before my time; sterile, boring, and better off left in the past.

My background is mostly in aquatics so I was pretty appalled by the Primate Cat and Aquatics Building. In addition to some very cramped and bored looking snow leopards, two depressed looking silverbacks in an enclosure the size of an urban back yard, and a loris that was doing nervous laps faster than I was aware loris' were able to move, all the fishes looked kind of rough and cramped. There was a shockingly tiny blue pool with a Blacktip reef shark swimming in unhealthily tight laps. Ram-ventilators need room to have a swim/glide pattern, they can't be "kicking" constantly or it causes serious health issues.

As others have pointed out though, the situation for the gorillas has improved and will continue to improve, and the orangs will get a bit of an upgrade as well. Further the poor shark isn't even there any more. When Primate Forest opens I'll be revisiting Cleveland for sure, they are definitely capable of incredible exhibits (elephants and wolves were both great), which is why they more out of date aspects were so disappointing.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Elephant Oddesey at the San Diego Zoo. When I visited a while ago, I felt like it didn’t live up to the hype at all. The exhibits weren’t bad, just not as good as I’d heard.

 

[Corangurilla]

Elephant Oddesey at the San Diego Zoo. When I visited a while ago, I felt like it didn’t live up to the hype at all. The exhibits weren’t bad, just not as good as I’d heard.

Hmmm… Elephant Odyssey is a very contentious area from what I’ve seen here. It’s a really cool concept, but the execution is a little muddy. Some stuff works, some doesn’t. I wouldn’t call it overrated or underrated, just “rated”.

 

[Moebelle]

Elephant Oddesey at the San Diego Zoo. When I visited a while ago, I felt like it didn’t live up to the hype at all. The exhibits weren’t bad, just not as good as I’d heard.

I have yet to come across a single compliment towards the Elephant Odyssey. The sensationalism and hype around the attraction is purely criticism from what I've seen.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

I have yet to come across a single compliment towards the Elephant Odyssey. The sensationalism and hype around the attraction is purely criticism from what I've seen.

Maybe it's just the hype for the zoo as a whole that had me expecting better exhibits.

 

[Corangurilla]

I have yet to come across a single compliment towards the Elephant Odyssey. The sensationalism and hype around the attraction is purely criticism from what I've seen.

I mean, I like the concept of it, for whatever that’s worth. I don’t know, I was on the Elephant Odyssey hype train as a naive 8-year old who didn’t know about words like “husbandry” or “standards”.
But here’s a question for @Pleistocene891: who is overrating these habitats? The general public? Other zoochatters? I’m asking this because the general public loves Elephant Odyssey, but folks here on Zoochat don’t.

 

[Pleistocene891]

I mean, I like the concept of it, for whatever that’s worth. I don’t know, I was on the Elephant Odyssey hype train as a naive 8-year old who didn’t know about words like “husbandry” or “standards”.
But here’s a question for @Pleistocene891: who is overrating these habitats? The general public? Other zoochatters? I’m asking this because the general public loves Elephant Odyssey, but folks here on Zoochat don’t.

This is thread is mainly discussing exhibits overrated on zoochat.

 

[lintworm]

I am going to throw in a European one for a change: Gondwanaland in Zoo Leipzig. Yes it is the second largest rainforest hall in a zoo and it is an imoressive structure with an impressive amount of plant growth. But far too many enclosures are mediocre and there is too much out of place mock rock. It is just too crowded with exhibits and a boat ride to be effective.

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

I pick my local zoo, that being Bali Zoo. The zoo was overrated in general, but special mention goes to the savannah exhibit. It's nice and spacious, but...

It's basically empty. As in, the only inhabitants are ostriches, zebras, sitatungas, and guineafowls. Never seen an african savannah so damn empty inside. I've been to Copenhagen and saw giraffes, rhinos, ostriches, zebras, bonteboks, impalas, and sable antelopes coexist, but this one is just empty. I don't know how the savannah will turn out when they finally got the giraffes and the rhinos into the exhibit, but for now it was basically empty as hell.

 

[Fallax]

I am going to throw in a European one for a change: Gondwanaland in Zoo Leipzig. Yes it is the second largest rainforest hall in a zoo and it is an imoressive structure with an impressive amount of plant growth. But far too many enclosures are mediocre and there is too much out of place mock rock. It is just too crowded with exhibits and a boat ride to be effective.

The mention of a boat ride here made me think about my home zoo... Specifically Chester and specifically Islands...

I'm going to raise the question on if Islands is overrated, I have heard a lot of praise and a lot of criticism on it over the years however it does mostly lean towards the praise!

Personally speaking, I think the issue with Islands is definitely not one of animal welfare... This is Chester we are talking about, all the enclosures are superb for their inhabitants. The main issue with a good amount of Islands enclosures is the viewing, you can sometimes go past most of the enclosures here and see nothing. Of course it is great that the animals have privacy however sometimes you have to wonder if viewings areas have been laid out well.

From experience, the tigers are hard to spot here, there is only two viewing areas from the path and considering the size of the enclosure it means most times you won't see them! From the boat ride you can see more but I believe this costs an extra fare and can sometimes be quite busy... Some of the enclosures are also only mostly viewable from a sort of top down perspective (most noticeable with the warty pig and banteng).

Monsoon Forest is the centrepiece of Islands and it's a really good building but I do think it suffers from having bad viewings in some areas, this was worse before the fire too... The "research centre" area with the orangutan and gibbon indoor viewing was awful to navigate, it's still a bit cramped but the current layout is an improvement. An issue I don't see brought up too much in regards to the building is the lack of areas to just sit down and relax, this is the biggest indoor rainforest in the UK and it has a lot of free flying birds but despite this you are mostly stuck on a path going past other exhibits and can't really sit down to appreciate it. The most infamous issue with Monsoon Forest is the one way path to the tomistoma... This area is not very big and gets absolutely packed on busy days.

Overall, I don't really think Islands is overrated, it has issues but I think considering this was the biggest budget zoo exhibit in UK history it's worth bringing up... It is most definitely still an absolute must see exhibit but there is certainly an interesting discussion to be had.

 

[Austin the Sengi]

If there was one exhibit complex that I find to be both overrated and worthy of bringing this thread back to relevancy all at once…

I’d say the Oklahoma Trails of the OKC Zoo.

 

[DesertTortoise]

If there was one exhibit complex that I find to be both overrated and worthy of bringing this thread back to relevancy all at once…

I’d say the Oklahoma Trails of the OKC Zoo.

What! I would call this exhibit underrated. It’s certainly one of the best North American exhibits in a US zoo. It’s actually in my personal list of the top 5 zoo exhibit complexes that I have ever seen.

I’m curious as to what makes you call this exhibit overrated? Have you seen the exhibit in person?

 

[Austin the Sengi]

@DesertTortoise since this past Wednesday, I have seen the trails in person.

To start, I didn’t exactly start at the “traditional” entrance right away; for I initially started at where the bison are coming in from the nearby Predator Pass. Once there, I ended up having to backtrack most of the complex just to make sure I didn’t skip anything entirely.

All of this backtracking alone wasn’t great, but what also didn’t help is that I’m also not a fan of being “forced” to look down at an animal from above, which a lot of the viewing areas were (seemingly) designed for.

I should also mention that while the exteriors of both the Nocturnal Barn and the Big Rivers building were nicely-themed; it felt a little jarring and unrewarding to head inside each building and end up seeing both “empty” visitor areas and loosely-themed indoor exhibits.

There was also a pair of Black-Necked Swans inside of the walkthrough aviary, which threw me off as far as “being immersed” was concerned.

Needless to say, if there’s one thing about the Oklahoma Trails that we can both agree on being good, it’s the signage (even if the LifeZones sign is in desperate need for a refresh, but that’s beside the point).

 

[DesertTortoise]

@DesertTortoise since this past Wednesday, I have seen the trails in person.

To start, I didn’t exactly start at the “traditional” entrance right away; for I initially started at where the bison are coming in from the nearby Predator Pass. Once there, I ended up having to backtrack most of the complex just to make sure I didn’t skip anything entirely.

All of this backtracking alone wasn’t great, but what also didn’t help is that I’m also not a fan of being “forced” to look down at an animal from above, which a lot of the viewing areas were (seemingly) designed for.

I should also mention that while the exteriors of both the Nocturnal Barn and the Big Rivers building were nicely-themed; it felt a little jarring and unrewarding to head inside each building and end up seeing both “empty” visitor areas and loosely-themed indoor exhibits.

There was also a pair of Black-Necked Swans inside of the walkthrough aviary, which threw me off as far as “being immersed” was concerned.

Needless to say, if there’s one thing about the Oklahoma Trails that we can both agree on being good, it’s the signage (even if the LifeZones sign is in desperate need for a refresh, but that’s beside the point).

I agree that the additional entrance near the bison could shift the experience, but it still functions as a loop just the same as the traditional entrance, so backtracking shouldn’t even be necessary.

Several of the animals have viewing areas placed above the exhibits, but the exhibits stretch far enough back, and some have sloped elevation so that most of the time you are looking out at the animals rather than down on them. The bears also have additional glass viewing at ground level.

It seems you are really focused on theming or immersion elements when judging the exhibit, and many of the exhibits, even the outdoor ones, are not heavily themed. Many of the enclosures here appear to be relatively simple enclosed spaces with fencing sometimes even visible in the back. I would agree that additional immersive elements would elevate the exhibit complex even more but are not necessary, in my opinion, to make a great zoo exhibit. The interior of the buildings aren’t immersive, but I don’t think they need to be. The focus should be on the animals and their exhibits, and not thematic elements, in my opinion. I also thought that many of the terrariums in the Big Rivers building were very well themed and decorated, despite your claim.

I don’t think having an inaccurate species or two in a geographic complex brings it down in any way. It may take away from some educational value by having a South American bird in a North American aviary, but the general public is not going to notice or care.

Few other North American exhibits prioritize diversity like this exhibit. North American exhibits are not rare in US zoos, but most focus on large mammals, with maybe a few birds or herps; few are as comprehensive as this one. I always like native animal exhibits more than exotic ones, so I may be a little biased toward this exhibit.

Oklahoma Trails has large mammals, small mammals, a walkthrough aviary, a nocturnal house, and an ectotherm building. I can’t think of another North American exhibit as complete as this one. They even highlight obscure endangered species found in Oklahoma, such as the leopard darters and Arkansas River shiners.

Oklahoma Trails has excellent signage, generally large exhibits, a diverse collection, and an emphasis on local biodiversity and ecosystems. I personally couldn’t ask for much else, and I think other zoos should take note when designing their own exhibit complexes. This is certainly the best North American zoo exhibit that I have seen, and it could be argued as the very best of its kind in the country. A few minor quibbles do not come close to outweighing the positives about this complex, and I would never think to call it overrated.

 

[Austin the Sengi]

I agree that the additional entrance near the bison could shift the experience, but it still functions as a loop just the same as the traditional entrance, so backtracking shouldn’t even be necessary.

Several of the animals have viewing areas placed above the exhibits, but the exhibits stretch far enough back, and some have sloped elevation so that most of the time you are looking out at the animals rather than down on them. The bears also have additional glass viewing at ground level.

It seems you are really focused on theming or immersion elements when judging the exhibit, and many of the exhibits, even the outdoor ones, are not heavily themed. Many of the enclosures here appear to be relatively simple enclosed spaces with fencing sometimes even visible in the back. I would agree that additional immersive elements would elevate the exhibit complex even more but are not necessary, in my opinion, to make a great zoo exhibit. The interior of the buildings aren’t immersive, but I don’t think they need to be. The focus should be on the animals and their exhibits, and not thematic elements, in my opinion. I also thought that many of the terrariums in the Big Rivers building were very well themed and decorated, despite your claim.

I don’t think having an inaccurate species or two in a geographic complex brings it down in any way. It may take away from some educational value by having a South American bird in a North American aviary, but the general public is not going to notice or care.

Few other North American exhibits prioritize diversity like this exhibit. North American exhibits are not rare in US zoos, but most focus on large mammals, with maybe a few birds or herps; few are as comprehensive as this one. I always like native animal exhibits more than exotic ones, so I may be a little biased toward this exhibit.

Oklahoma Trails has large mammals, small mammals, a walkthrough aviary, a nocturnal house, and an ectotherm building. I can’t think of another North American exhibit as complete as this one. They even highlight obscure endangered species found in Oklahoma, such as the leopard darters and Arkansas River shiners.

Oklahoma Trails has excellent signage, generally large exhibits, a diverse collection, and an emphasis on local biodiversity and ecosystems. I personally couldn’t ask for much else, and I think other zoos should take note when designing their own exhibit complexes. This is certainly the best North American zoo exhibit that I have seen, and it could be argued as the very best of its kind in the country. A few minor quibbles do not come close to outweighing the positives about this complex, and I would never think to call it overrated.

I have to say, these are some very valid points, and looking back, perhaps I rated Oklahoma Trails a bit too harshly.

Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed several of the enclosures for what they are; especially since it’s not every day that one gets an opportunity to view deer from a glass viewing area adjacent to one for cougars, for example.

You could partly blame my views of being used to Disney-levels of theming; although, in recent years, I’ve taken great strides in appreciating non-themed exhibits a lot more as well.

As for the Big Rivers building, my complaints were mostly from the guest perspective; for I thought the terrariums were decently-themed as they currently stand.

Being used to geographical-inaccurate aviaries at my local zoos, the swans were just a species that I was surprised to see.

I agree that Oklahoma Trails has a solid roster of North American fauna; and I really enjoyed the complex being themed around the specific habitats of Oklahoma, and not just the state as a whole. That’s just something I wish other continent-themed exhibits would focus on going forward here in the states.

Finally, while my statement of Oklahoma Trails not being my favorite native-animal complex still stands. I do agree that it is one of the better-executed exhibits of its type that I’ve seen; and I thank you @DesertTortoise for reflecting my initial perspective.