San Diego Zoo New Map!!!

I agree with Allen that San Diego's position as #1 will not be easily shaken and if you believe otherwise you're probably in denial. I would like to comment that while I think EO turned out worse than we thought it would, the new "grouping" concept is NOT random. All the animals are from the same region (southern California). They are simply from a different time period (Plestiocene). This concept is far fetched but so was breaking away from taxonomic grouping and switching to biogeographic grouping fifty or so years ago.
 
Last edited:
@ANyhuis: I stated on this thread that San Diego is my #1 zoo, and I think that there are definitely areas of brilliance within the massive collection. The one-two punch of the zoo and wild animal park is practically impossible to top within North America, so my love for that city has not been diminished.

However, the map is a major disappointment for long-term fans of the zoo, and "Elephant Odyssey" is $45 million that could have been spent on improving the zoo rather than actually worsening it with the total destruction of "Horn and Hoof Mesa". With Omaha and Columbus devoting an incredible amount of space and time to excellent exhibits I find it hard to believe that the gap is not closing. Those two zoos are year-after-year opening impressive, large-scale animal habitats while San Diego's one major addition in the past few years (EOdyssey) has not been looked upon kindly by many people. Hopefully the zoo can do something with all of its subpar "canyon" grottoes and tiny wire cages that still can be found all over the park. So, just to clarify, at the end of the day San Diego is still a beloved zoo for me but there are a handful of others that have opened higher quality exhibits and have a slighter brighter future.
 
The World Famous San Diego Petting Zoo

geomorph said:
This whole ungulate thing is getting confusing. I do not remember the burro exhibit in Urban Jungle having a sign, so it may have been a temporary home.
Click to expand...

Here is the answer to that...

San Diego Zoo Blogs Blog Archive Sicilian Donkey Sophia

What is happening is Elephant Mesa is becoming a holding-area for the show-animals used in their enormous upcharge "Backstage Pass" attraction.

I believe this trend of interactivity to be the source of a lot of the mess that is the San Diego Zoo now. The reason there are domestics in EO is so people can "pet" them. They are even adding a tortoise feeding encounter to the new Galapagos tortoise exhibit, some sort of Polar Bear interaction to Polar Bear Plunge (not to mention a new polar bear yard that takes up part of the reindeer yard and completely destroys the view. It was EXTREMELY short-sited of them to not build the Plunge to handle breeding even if there was a moratorium at the time) and I believe they are working some sort of interactive element into the new tiger exhibit at the park. It's really invasive. I am in favor of a certain number of highly-controlled interactive exhibits, but the whole facility is becoming a danged petting zoo!
 
Last edited:
snowleopard said:
With Omaha and Columbus devoting an incredible amount of space and time to excellent exhibits I find it hard to believe that the gap is not closing. Those two zoos are year-after-year opening impressive, large-scale animal habitats while San Diego's one major addition in the past few years (EOdyssey) has not been looked upon kindly by many people. Hopefully the zoo can do something with all of its subpar "canyon" grottoes and tiny wire cages that still can be found all over the park. So, just to clarify, at the end of the day San Diego is still a beloved zoo for me but there are a handful of others that have opened higher quality exhibits and have a slighter brighter future.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that Omaha and Columbus have gained -- a bit -- on San Diego's huge lead. I just think your words "closing the gap" is inaccurate because the gap is so HUGE that it's pretty hard to "close". My earlier comparison to the USA's largest city is a good one. New York City is so far ahead of Los Angeles that, even though LA actually is gaining, the gap is so huge that NYC will remain America's largest city for certainly my entire lifetime. I suspect the same is true of San Diego's well-established role as the USA's #1 zoo.

Finally, as I've said on another thread, I suspect that the only zoo in that actually "could" catch San Diego is Disney's Animal Kingdom -- simply because they could spend the money (Disney has it!) to improve that much!
 
ANyhuis said:
Finally, as I've said on another thread, I suspect that the only zoo in that actually "could" catch San Diego is Disney's Animal Kingdom -- simply because they could spend the money (Disney has it!) to improve that much!
Click to expand...

Being the best zoo isn't just about spending the money... what you do with it is far more important.
 
Shirokuma said:
Being the best zoo isn't just about spending the money... what you do with it is far more important.
Click to expand...

True, but San Diego has such a huge edge on the rest of the USA zoos that it would be impossible for any of them to catch them without spending a lot of money on exciting new exhibits (and upgrades of existing exhibits). New exhibits cost money.
 
But I would argue that it is about much more than throwing money at something, Elephant Odyssey in my view was not an effective use of money. I have seen cheaper exhibits which are much more effective and in my opinion, engaging. The Highland Wildlife Park's new polar bear exhibit in Scotland is a prime example of this.
 
Shirokuma said:
But I would argue that it is about much more than throwing money at something
Click to expand...

Again, I agree. But if you've seen Disney's existing exhibits, you'd agree they have not simply "thrown money at something" -- they are great! My only point is that you can't truly "close the gap" on San Diego's #1 role without spending lots of money on new and redesigned exhibits. Disney is the only US entity with enough money to actually make this happen, but I doubt they will do so.
 
@ANyhuis: what about the Columbus Zoo? The new polar bear exhibit opens soon, a hotel is in the works, a 70-acre African Savanna has been discussed for years, and then perhaps a South American zone will be developed. There is already an amusement park, a golf course and a waterslide park next to the impressive zoo, so the entire complex is going to be stunning a few years from now. The zoo is already a strong contender for America's top 5, and the money is there for future expansion. There are zero pits and grottoes like San Diego's "canyons", but I'm really just playing the devil's advocate here.:) San Diego should remain #1 for some time to come, but it's simply too bad that the hoofstock collection has become decimated and Elephant Odyssey appears to be a disaster.
 
snowleopard said:
@ANyhuis: what about the Columbus Zoo?
Click to expand...

You certainly make a good point, but I don't count the hotel, golf course, amusement park, and waterslide park as part of the zoo at all, though they do make for an attractive overall vacation destination!

Look at it this way: The San Diego Zoo is either the best, or among the best in almost every major category that a zoo can be rated. Very unofficially (according to our book), the SDZ is rated #1 in the USA for Birds, Reptiles, Primates, and Bears. It is #2 for Rides, and among the Top Ten for Shows, Insects, Australian Animals, Asian Animals, and Cats. No other zoo comes even close to such amazing diversity or excellence in their collection. No zoo is perfect, including this one, but it's the only zoo in America that can compete head-to-head with Sea World and Disneyland for tourist dollars, and it's very likely that it will remain this way for decades.

I seriously don't see Elephant Odyssey as a "disaster". It's a bit disappointing from the initial photographs I've seen, but having been taken through the exhibit before it opened, I think it will look fine once the dust settles and all the bugs are ironed out. I won't be shocked if, 5 years from now, we're all talking about it as one of the best and most innovative zoo exhibits in America.
 
Shirokuma said:
But I would argue that it is about much more than throwing money at something, Elephant Odyssey in my view was not an effective use of money. I have seen cheaper exhibits which are much more effective and in my opinion, engaging. The Highland Wildlife Park's new polar bear exhibit in Scotland is a prime example of this.
Click to expand...

The best example I can think of that directly compares to Elephant Odyssey is the Nashville Zoo's Elephant Savanna. At 3.5 million dollars it was extremely cheap to construct, but there is no African elephant exhibit nearly as good as Nashville's. Maybe in another year or two with Dallas or Cleveland, but as of now I don't think anyone has one as good. Elephant Odyssey cost 45 million dollars and is definitely not the best Asian elephant exhibit. There are plenty of better ones I can think of that are better such as Columbus, St. Louis, even Bronx.

I still think Bronx Zoo is better than San Diego. I understand they have koalas and pandas, but I for one, I am not too impressed with that. I am not a big fan of either species to be honest. If San Diego is better than Bronx, they have a slight edge not a huge one. Still that is extremely subjective.
 
snowleopard said:
@ANyhuis: I stated on this thread that San Diego is my #1 zoo, and I think that there are definitely areas of brilliance within the massive collection. The one-two punch of the zoo and wild animal park is practically impossible to top within North America, so my love for that city has not been diminished.

However, the map is a major disappointment for long-term fans of the zoo, and "Elephant Odyssey" is $45 million that could have been spent on improving the zoo rather than actually worsening it with the total destruction of "Horn and Hoof Mesa". With Omaha and Columbus devoting an incredible amount of space and time to excellent exhibits I find it hard to believe that the gap is not closing. Those two zoos are year-after-year opening impressive, large-scale animal habitats while San Diego's one major addition in the past few years (EOdyssey) has not been looked upon kindly by many people. Hopefully the zoo can do something with all of its subpar "canyon" grottoes and tiny wire cages that still can be found all over the park. So, just to clarify, at the end of the day San Diego is still a beloved zoo for me but there are a handful of others that have opened higher quality exhibits and have a slighter brighter future.
Click to expand...

I agree that the gap is closing, but don't know what will happen going forward since SD's plans aren't well known.

However, I will continue to defend EO. It did better the zoo, not as much as it should have, but having a much better and bigger exhibit for the largest animals at the zoo, and one of the most important animals a zoo can have is a big upgrade. The condor exhibit is great, the jaguar, sloth, tapir/capybara/guanaco, and reptile exhibits are quite good as well.

I also like the concept.

I will also say again that for the vast majority of people(not people on here), the exhibit is a big improvement over horn and hoof mesa which would bore most.

I'm also not nearly as excited about Columbus as you.
 
Last edited:
ANyhuis said:
You certainly make a good point, but I don't count the hotel, golf course, amusement park, and waterslide park as part of the zoo at all, though they do make for an attractive overall vacation destination!

Look at it this way: The San Diego Zoo is either the best, or among the best in almost every major category that a zoo can be rated. Very unofficially (according to our book), the SDZ is rated #1 in the USA for Birds, Reptiles, Primates, and Bears. It is #2 for Rides, and among the Top Ten for Shows, Insects, Australian Animals, Asian Animals, and Cats. No other zoo comes even close to such amazing diversity or excellence in their collection. No zoo is perfect, including this one, but it's the only zoo in America that can compete head-to-head with Sea World and Disneyland for tourist dollars, and it's very likely that it will remain this way for decades.

I seriously don't see Elephant Odyssey as a "disaster". It's a bit disappointing from the initial photographs I've seen, but having been taken through the exhibit before it opened, I think it will look fine once the dust settles and all the bugs are ironed out. I won't be shocked if, 5 years from now, we're all talking about it as one of the best and most innovative zoo exhibits in America.
Click to expand...

The dust has settled, that's the problem ;).
 
BlackRhino said:
The best example I can think of that directly compares to Elephant Odyssey is the Nashville Zoo's Elephant Savanna. At 3.5 million dollars it was extremely cheap to construct, but there is no African elephant exhibit nearly as good as Nashville's. Maybe in another year or two with Dallas or Cleveland, but as of now I don't think anyone has one as good. Elephant Odyssey cost 45 million dollars and is definitely not the best Asian elephant exhibit. There are plenty of better ones I can think of that are better such as Columbus, St. Louis, even Bronx.

I still think Bronx Zoo is better than San Diego. I understand they have koalas and pandas, but I for one, I am not too impressed with that. I am not a big fan of either species to be honest. If San Diego is better than Bronx, they have a slight edge not a huge one. Still that is extremely subjective.
Click to expand...

I agree that EO is not great, but that 45 million went to a lot more than just setting up the elephant exhibit. There are obviously many other exhibits included, they had to clear an already developed area, spent a lot on a state of the art elephant house, built a restaurant and gift shop, there's also all the theming(statues, tar pit area), and construction costs more in San Diego than it does in Nashville. So while I agree it wasn't the best way to spend the money, we should keep things in perspective.

I don't think Columbus or the Bronx have better elephant exhibits either. Certainly not the Bronx from a visitor or an animal perspective.

BTW, pandas and koalas are not the only species that give SD the edge in that regard to the Bronx.
 
BlackRhino said:
If San Diego is better than Bronx, they have a slight edge not a huge one. Still that is extremely subjective.
Click to expand...

With a huge emphasis on "extremely"! As I think you know, BRhino, I've done an exhibit-by-exhibit matchup comparison of San Diego vs the Bronx, and it was a slam dunk! SD won something like 15 comparisons, while Bronx won 4 of them. Saying San Diego is not the best zoo in America is like saying New York City is not the largest city in the USA.

And Hallelujah, MWeb08 has stepped forward with a solid defense of Elephant Odyssey! The concept of the exhibit is very different, and thus it will take some time for folks (especially on this board) to get used to it. But, as MWeb has said, the exhibit is very popular among San Diegans!
 
ANyhuis said:
And Hallelujah, MWeb08 has stepped forward with a solid defense of Elephant Odyssey! The concept of the exhibit is very different, and thus it will take some time for folks (especially on this board) to get used to it. But, as MWeb has said, the exhibit is very popular among San Diegans!
Click to expand...

The concept is not the problem many of us have with it, it's the execution. There is little attempt at making it an immersion exhibit. Immersion is what has become expected for really great exhibits.
 
Ituri said:
The concept is not the problem many of us have with it, it's the execution. There is little attempt at making it an immersion exhibit. Immersion is what has become expected for really great exhibits.
Click to expand...

Well the idea is to immerse you in southern California thousands of years ago. They don't do a great job with it I agree, but anyway, we aren't claiming that it's a really great exhibit. I just think it gets bashed too much and too harshly.
 
mstickmanp said:
I don't want to start another debate, but isn't that the same case with other exhibits like Campo Gorilla Reserve at the LA Zoo, and recently the Bronx Zoo?
Click to expand...

I don't think the LA Zoo gorilla's exhibit gets bashed that often, and I'm one of the people who have knocked it. And even though I've knocked it, I still don't think it's a disaster or anything like that. What specifically are you referring to with the Bronx Zoo? I know one person has been bashing it a lot, but that's just one person. Otherwise there's been some debate about it, but I don't see how that compares to what I'm referring to.
 
ANyhuis said:
Saying San Diego is not the best zoo in America is like saying New York City is not the largest city in the USA.
Click to expand...

That really isn't a good comparison. New York City is the largest city in the USA by anyone's reckoning. You can measure it without dispute. Like winning a race.

But judging a zoo isn't like judging the winner of a race.

It's more like a book award - or even figure skating! It's subjective, in the eye of the beholder.

You can use this criteria for the biggest zoo, the most comprehensive. But when it comes to defining the 'best', it just doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top