Well in my opinion many of your comments are over the top and I tend to doubt that many zoo professionals would word things the way you do. But maybe they do, I don't know. I just find some of your comments in the post where you list the exhibits hard to defend and opinions that are a stark contrast to those of mine and most others on here, including some rather critical people.
I don't think the weather changes my thinking on how good individual exhibits are other than to know that these animals get to live outdoors in good weather year round, which is no doubt a significant advantage for SD. I personally enjoyed my one visit to Lied Jungle a great deal, more so than perhaps any other zoo exhibit I have been to, but when rating that or Jungleworld or the like versus Monkey Trails, I have to consider that Monkey Trails is better for most of its inhabitants. I also happen to think Monkey Trails is a very good exhibit, has a great collection of species within it, and to make things better it connects to a lot of good to great and similarly themed exhibits.
The weather also simply leads to a more enjoyable zoo going experience for visitors.
However, when zoos are rated on here, I think northern zoos are actually given the benefit of the doubt and generally rated considering peak season for them without really considering indoor holdings and animals being off-exhibit and such. The only times indoor holdings are generally held against zoos are when people can see them, such as the Omaha cat building. This is kind of a tangent here, but I don't think it makes sense to to rip one zoo for its indoor holdings while giving another with similar indoor holdings a pass just because it's not setup for the public.
Anyway, obviously we're going to agree to disagree here, but out of curiosity, and I may have seen them before, but have you posted your zoo rankings on this site?
That's fair and I agree. Some act like the zoo isn't even a top 5 zoo in the country and seem to be biased against it. So that's where the problem for me lies.
yees, its almost as if elephant odessy was a dissapointment, and now all of a sudden they're finding ways to 'slag-off' every little thing in the park that they wouldn't have before. We have to admit, San Diego IS withing the top 5 zoo's in the world, almost Definatly the Best zoo In the country. I do hope that they improve some of there worse exhibits, eg the canyons + grotto's
Both reduakari and mweb08 make such good points, I don't know who I agree with more! mweb08, I myself am I fan of the Bronx, and I am yet to visit San Diego, but I do agree with you on Northeastern zoos getting the benefit of the doubt. It's a shame some don't have indoor viewing for their animals during colder months and it usually isn’t appreciated that animals get locked up for five months. However Bronx's close-up encounters at the giraffe house are nice.
I don't know if I'll ever visit the Bronx in the winter again, (I haven't in over 5 years) but all I know is that I would if I could because, like betsy w/SDZ, I am proud to have the Bronx as my hometown zoo and would go anytime.
And reduakari, as bad as some of Elephant Odyssey's exhibits are, like the small lion exhibit and the unsightly building in the capybara enclosure, I still somehow overlook them and find myself liking the exhibit... But for those who badly criticize Elephant Odyssey, ask yourself this: (AND REDUAKARI, THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWPOINT)
Is Elephant Odyssey really that bad? Or was it YOU who had expectations that were TOO HIGH and went all berserk on San Diego just because it wasn’t what YOU had it mind?
Is Elephant Odyssey really that bad? Or was it YOU who had expectations that were TOO HIGH and went all berserk on San Diego just because it wasn’t what YOU had it mind?
No, it really is that bad. If they had spent a hundred thousand dollars on it, maybe it would be understandable. But forty four million for a dust bowl with elephants viewed through cables? I don't know how anyone anywhere can justify that monstrosity.
No, it really is that bad. If they had spent a hundred thousand dollars on it, maybe it would be understandable. But forty four million for a dust bowl with elephants viewed through cables? I don't know how anyone anywhere can justify that monstrosity.
It really isn't that bad and of course the dollar figure has a lot to do with the location and the demolition of the space. There are spots where you can view the elephants without cables, and the viewing of them is quite good in general. They have a lot of space, a great pool, and some elements that may not be liked from a visitor point of view, especially a zoochat visitor, but are good for the animals.
The exhibit also features a nice overall theme, a great condor exhibit and reptile/amphibian exhibits, a good jaguar exhibit, and some other decent to good exhibits. The lion exhibit is definitely too small though.
It is a disappointing exhibit considering the resources, but the resources should not ultimately matter in judging a zoo and/or an exhibit unless you're judging it from a designer/zoo director perspective. From a visitor perspective, it shouldn't make a solid exhibit an awful one.
It really isn't that bad and of course the dollar figure has a lot to do with the location and the demolition of the space. There are spots where you can view the elephants without cables, and the viewing of them is quite good in general. They have a lot of space, a great pool, and some elements that may not be liked from a visitor point of view, especially a zoochat visitor, but are good for the animals.
The exhibit also features a nice overall theme, a great condor exhibit and reptile/amphibian exhibits, a good jaguar exhibit, and some other decent to good exhibits. The lion exhibit is definitely too small though.
It is a disappointing exhibit considering the resources, but the resources should not ultimately matter in judging a zoo and/or an exhibit unless you're judging it from a designer/zoo director perspective. From a visitor perspective, it shouldn't make a solid exhibit an awful one.
Maybe someone needs to revive a thread on EO, as this poor takin exhibit photo has taken on quite a bit of baggage!
But in the meantime, let me take issue with the statement that EO "features a nice exhibit theme."
The original idea: to show that in Pleistocene California, elephants and many other large animals once lived, to be represented by their close living relatives now found in other parts of the world. Great concept.
Overlaid on top of that, however:
--a petting zoo pen for domestic donkeys and horses.
--the most heavy-handed use of steel structures seen since the construction of the Eiffel Tower.
--Lots of plants from Madagascar (???)--or no plants whatsoever.
--life-sized "replicas" of other now-extinct species that are so cartoonish as to be laughable.
--"conservation graphics" about modern elephants, radio-collars etc., including some so "artistic" that no one could have a clue what they are about.
--some of the most crudely-rendered artificial rocks this side of Fred and Barney's houses in Bedrock City.
--Weird, unadorned concrete block buildings reinforcing the message that, um, the animals go to sleep in ugly unadorned concrete block buildings?
--I've heard on good authority that at one time this complex was to be called "American Elephants," in the hope that the notoriously conservative Republican community of wealth in San Diego would "buy in" to the project--at least THAT didn't happen.....
I just think there are too many discordant messages, and such a confused aesthetic that I would guess very few people are getting the "big idea," much less all the secondary and tertiary ideas that are glommed onto the big, unwieldy mess that is EO.
Well of course I feel you are being overly critical, but at the same time I agree with some of what you say and I didn't say the theme was perfectly executed.
The theme is very poorly executed, even with so much space for creativity to design "Southern California in the Pleistocene." Although the plant species in the area are very interesting, the tiny landscape between the huge dusty exhibit seem more like a Desert than California. Also, isn't their evidence that California had a greener landscape back in the Pleistocene?
No, it really is that bad. If they had spent a hundred thousand dollars on it, maybe it would be understandable. But forty four million for a dust bowl with elephants viewed through cables? I don't know how anyone anywhere can justify that monstrosity.
Well, when you put it that way... And after the points reduakari's made, forget I said anything! I was so naive as to judge the complex on just the two exhibits I liked. I don't know how I was so stupid as to not consider EO's many other faults.
mweb08 is right in saying that the exhibit has a good theme, but it wasn't executed correctly at all. And good point, btw, Otter Lord, in saying that the Pleistocene was lusher/greener... I'm not sure why SD decided to use those "fantastic" utili-trees rather than actual trees! Even if they put those protective fences around the trees (like in Polar Rim's zebra exhibit) to prevent the animals from harming the trees, I'm sure it would've looked far more attractive than those awful things. Not sure what thread I read it on, but a ZooChatter suggested they should just stick leafy branches into the utilitree. Even that would work!
Makes me kinda mad now that I realized how much steel was used in this complex. The Pleistocene did have greener environments, (something San Diego should've made clear, which they did not) and since when is steel green?
Yes, mweb08, the elephants have a lovely, enriching exhibit what with the large pool and what not, but where's the grass? I'm caught in the middle here contradicting myself, trying to give EO some slack when it really doesn't deserve it.
