No, unfortunately, I'm more into mammals than birds and most of the time I spend in bird houses I'm considering their design, not which species they have. Geomorph might know, or Blackduiker, the others who have photos in this gallery.
This is indeed one of the greatest bird houses I have visited; the only sign of age is its design. The zoo seems to maintain it well and I remember how clean it was inside. I have visited many younger buildings which looked much older than they actually were.
But beauty is always in the eye of the beholder - and personally I almost always prefer the interior of the exhibit to be landscaped but the outside clean, straightforward and pleasant to spend time in. You could easily sit here for hours if you chose without feeling out of place. And there's light - you can actually see your camera controls/map/guide book/companions, and children are less likely to run into you. You won't trip over fake animal prints in the path or clout yourself on a sticking-out lump of wood on a handrail. Baldur praises the cleanliness - it's much easier to keep this style of public area looking clean and bright.
It just looks somewhere nice to be.
EDIT: I should probably add that the above is mainly thinking about big, multi-exhibit animal houses, and doesn't really apply to outdoor exhibits (except the wonky paths and fences bit!).
I too love this house. I think it one of the nicest bird houses I've seen, mainly for the reasons outline by Maguari and Baldur.
Interestingly, it comes in for criticism in one of the David Hancocks books - I forget which, but I don't think it's the most recent. He deplores the way that naturalistic exhibits give way, instantly, to 'sanitised' public spaces. I think he's calling for the sort fo rough wooden paths that are mentioned here (as well as planting, and, perhaps, theming too). I understand his argument - but I disagree. Looking at Baldur's pictures here is enough to make me want to go to St Louis again (my visit was a long time ago). I have never had that visceral urge with, say, Disney's Wild Animal Kingdom.
I too love this house. I think it one of the nicest bird houses I've seen, mainly for the reasons outline by Maguari and Baldur.
Interestingly, it comes in for criticism in one of the David Hancocks books - I forget which, but I don't think it's the most recent. He deplores the way that naturalistic exhibits give way, instantly, to 'sanitised' public spaces. I think he's calling for the sort fo rough wooden paths that are mentioned here (as well as planting, and, perhaps, theming too). I understand his argument - but I disagree. Looking at Baldur's pictures here is enough to make me want to go to St Louis again (my visit was a long time ago). I have never had that visceral urge with, say, Disney's Wild Animal Kingdom.
Perhaps Hancocks criticized this exhibit as stated above, but I doubt the concern was about the lack of the type of trite additions that seem to be added to so many European and American zoos under the banner of "immersion" (rough wooden paths etc.). Plants and landforms, not cheesy theme park human artifacts, typify the immersion experiences Hancocks created in Seattle, Tucson and Melbourne. St. Louis' Bird House is very nice, even excellent, but then so is Hancocks' "magnum opus," the African savanna area in Seattle.
