Even smaller rainforest houses work. Beardsley Zoo in fact opened their rainforest house the same year Omaha and Brookfield opened theirs. Their rainforest house is dwarfed a hundred times by Omaha and isn't as impressive as Buffalo's either, but is filled with mostly good exhibits, and just tries to focus on South America, and creates a mostly good experience for both visitors and animal.
There are some great points on this photo thread, and I am a big fan of the rainforest complexes in Buffalo and Mesker Park. Connecticut's Beardsley Zoo has a very tiny rainforest area but what it does it does very well and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Omaha, Bronx, Cleveland, etc, all the "mega-buildings" often suffer from criticism for the space given over to large mammals. I am convinced that is why I rarely hear a bad thing about Denver's Tropical Discovery as I loved that building and it only contains 7 small mammal species (3 of which are bats) and is essentially a Reptile House/Aquarium. There are no great apes or tapirs roaming around on cement landscapes.
I tend to think these kind of displays work better without trying to work in large mammals. Of the two most frequently-discussed favoured examples in Europe one has nothing larger than a Giant Tortoise or a Ruffed Lemur and the other has nothing terrestrial larger than an Aardvark (though of course it does have manatees in one of the waterways).
Zurich's Masoala stocklist is rather limited by its theme (Madagascar-with-a-hint-of-Mascarenes) but Burgers Bush is not - I tend to think they made a wise decision in leaving out the larger species.
I tend to think these kind of displays work better without trying to work in large mammals. Of the two most frequently-discussed favoured examples in Europe one has nothing larger than a Giant Tortoise or a Ruffed Lemur and the other has nothing terrestrial larger than an Aardvark (though of course it does have manatees in one of the waterways).
Zurich's Masoala stocklist is rather limited by its theme (Madagascar-with-a-hint-of-Mascarenes) but Burgers Bush is not - I tend to think they made a wise decision in leaving out the larger species.
Surely Leipzig have the best tropical house in Europe?
You were very pleased with it if I remember correctly and that houses tapir and pygmy hippo, or am I wrong?
Just interested as to why that didn't make the top 2?
Leipzig has the largest tropical house in Europe, but I like Burgers Bush better (haven't seen Masaola yet). Leipzigs Gondwanaland has a very clever set up and good animal housing, but it is just a indoor zoo and doesn't have a real rainforest experience (yet(?)). Another flaw is the amount of fake rock used in Gondwanaland. Give it some time but I don't think it will ever give the rainforest experience you get in Burgers Bush
Lied Jungle was opened in 1992 while Tropic World was built in the 1980s (it opened in different sections)
Also the advantage that the Lied Jungle has is that it is not just 3 giant mixed species exhibits with smaller exhibits for great apes on the end like Tropic World.
@team tapir I think that the tapir in Tropic World likes to be indoors because it is always the same tapir while there is space and other tapirs in the pachyderm house for her. And I think that the amount of small exhibits in Tropic World and Lied Jungle are even.
Surely Leipzig have the best tropical house in Europe?
You were very pleased with it if I remember correctly and that houses tapir and pygmy hippo, or am I wrong?
Just interested as to why that didn't make the top 2?
Gondwanaland entirely escaped my mind. I think the lack of free-flight species at the time I went means it's in a different mental filing cabinet! Lintworm summed up my own feelings very well when he said Gondwanaland feels like an indoor zoo rather than a tropical rainforest house. It's very good, but no competitor to the top two as a rainforest experience... yet. It's early days.
I think that all the tropical houses (Australiasia, African Rainforest, Indo-Malaya, Malayan woods, and Americas) at the Toronto Zoo are very good. They all have plenty of sunlight, filled with plants and have natural substrate in the exhibits. I think that the indoor gorilla exhibit in the African Rainforest Pavilion may be the best in North America.
@lintworm & Maguari, I think I can see where you're both coming from regarding the rainforest experience but as you both stated (to an extent) it's early days, in a couple of years it may well have that immersive feel of Lied Jungle.
From photo's it looks amazing and surely the tropical planting gives it more of an edge than an indoor zoo? Also I've heard that an outdoor tapir enclosure is part of the long term plan,which would be a luxury Omaha don't have! Or is that no longer the case?
Either way, husbandry-wise it appears better than Omaha for larger species! (From an outsiders point of view! )
Gondwanaland entirely escaped my mind. I think the lack of free-flight species at the time I went means it's in a different mental filing cabinet! Lintworm summed up my own feelings very well when he said Gondwanaland feels like an indoor zoo rather than a tropical rainforest house. It's very good, but no competitor to the top two as a rainforest experience... yet. It's early days.
Gondwanaland now includes 10 species of free-flight birds, plus several lizard and frog species. Next will be flying foxes. The growth of the vegetation and the free-ranging animals have already changed the general feeling of the place (for the better). There are some "indoor zoo" spaces there that are more Lied than Masoala, especially the pygmy hippo area. But on the whole, this is a fantastic experience for visitors and animals alike.
