On what criteria do you base your opinion? From what your photos show, this seems like just a modest, cleaned up version of the former bird house in Berlin, which will again house a huge number of species in a series of extremely plain and repetitive aviaries. What used to be a veritable encyclopedia of birds (with all the excitement of reading an encyclopedia) is now being re-arranged on a zoogeographic basis, but is otherwise just a reprise of an exhibition style and philosophy that is straight out of the 1950s. Biggest bird house, perhaps, but the best?
On what criteria do you base your opinion? From what your photos show, this seems like just a modest, cleaned up version of the former bird house in Berlin, which will again house a huge number of species in a series of extremely plain and repetitive aviaries. What used to be a veritable encyclopedia of birds (with all the excitement of reading an encyclopedia) is now being re-arranged on a zoogeographic basis, but is otherwise just a reprise of an exhibition style and philosophy that is straight out of the 1950s. Biggest bird house, perhaps, but the best?
These are interesting questions, and an interesting argument that you make.
Having read and wholly enjoyed your posts on this site over the past several years, I would suggest that what you look for (and like) in a zoo exhibit is, very often, very different to what I would admire.
So, while I can appreciate the suggestion you put forward, I just don't agree. I can think of nothing better than having a large number of species to see, as will be possible here (but then I'm the sort of nerd who's always liked encyclopaedias!). The concept of ersatz theming leaves me cold; when I visit this house, I am very obviously in a northern European city (and very happy to be thus located); I don't really want to see animals in a way that is trying to convince me that I am, in fact, actually in the jungles of Indonesia (or wherever). I wouldn't dream of saying that this - Berlin - way of doing things is the right way, because, ultimately, this is a subjective thing. In Germany, those who want a different approach are very well catered for; those who like traditional taxonomic animal house are, also, able to find satisfaction.
The new house has that very Germanic, slightly modernist look to it - lots of straight lines and few fussy add-ons. I like this a lot; others will disagree.
So, in conclusion, I would say that of course this won't be to your taste; in fact, I'd feel I had misjudged you if the opposite were true. But in the same way that we all have different tastes in music, in food, in cinema, so too do we have different tastes in zoos. For me - the most exciting zoo building of the past few years; for reduakari, an un imaginative, reactionary piece of design that fails to take account of the past 60 years. Vive la difference!
These are interesting questions, and an interesting argument that you make.
Having read and wholly enjoyed your posts on this site over the past several years, I would suggest that what you look for (and like) in a zoo exhibit is, very often, very different to what I would admire.
So, while I can appreciate the suggestion you put forward, I just don't agree. I can think of nothing better than having a large number of species to see, as will be possible here (but then I'm the sort of nerd who's always liked encyclopaedias!). The concept of ersatz theming leaves me cold; when I visit this house, I am very obviously in a northern European city (and very happy to be thus located); I don't really want to see animals in a way that is trying to convince me that I am, in fact, actually in the jungles of Indonesia (or wherever). I wouldn't dream of saying that this - Berlin - way of doing things is the right way, because, ultimately, this is a subjective thing. In Germany, those who want a different approach are very well catered for; those who like traditional taxonomic animal house are, also, able to find satisfaction.
The new house has that very Germanic, slightly modernist look to it - lots of straight lines and few fussy add-ons. I like this a lot; others will disagree.
So, in conclusion, I would say that of course this won't be to your taste; in fact, I'd feel I had misjudged you if the opposite were true. But in the same way that we all have different tastes in music, in food, in cinema, so too do we have different tastes in zoos. For me - the most exciting zoo building of the past few years; for reduakari, an un imaginative, reactionary piece of design that fails to take account of the past 60 years. Vive la difference!
I think one might need to head to Veldhoeven for such a treat; at Berlin, "T for trumpet manucode" might need to suffice - although, if an umbrella bird is what you want....
It really doesn't bear over-repetition that in Northern Europe, with its colder winters - and Berlin's can be very cold - immersion exhibits are a great deal harder to create than is the case in California.
It is a moot point whether or not the effort ought to be made, or efforts made simply to create exhibits based on the simpler requirements of good animal husbandry.
It really doesn't bear over-repetition that in Northern Europe, with its colder winters - and Berlin's can be very cold - immersion exhibits are a great deal harder to create than is the case in California.
It is a moot point whether or not the effort ought to be made, or efforts made simply to create exhibits based on the simpler requirements of good animal husbandry.
Well, one could point out the excellent indoor and outdoor exhibits in cold climate zoos like Leipzig, Zurich, Omaha, Hamburg, Hannover and New York that are in fact more effective at creating convincing immersion experiences than anything in any California zoo (with the possible exception of parts of the San Diego Safari Park). Clearly this is not--nor ever has been--a priority in Berlin. Which is fine, if a bit anachronistic.
I find this debate interesting as to what people get out of different types of exhibit. I really like geographical theming and it is interesting when done well, however my favourite zoo experience is walking into Frankfurt's Grizmekhaus for the first time and being blown away by the scale of it and the diversity kept in there, and then to leave that building to walk pretty much straight into the Exoterium was fantastic
It really doesn't bear over-repetition that in Northern Europe, with its colder winters - and Berlin's can be very cold - immersion exhibits are a great deal harder to create than is the case in California.
I was thinking of the mock temples, "mud huts", strange "ethnic" statues, and other human pseudo-artefacts that dominate such places as Hannover, Gelsenkirchen and Paira Daiza.
Really? Of the ones that reduakari mentions, Hamburg is marvellous in an early C20th sort of way (no criticism!); Hannover goes full steam ahead for the Tarzan / Jungle Book approach; Leipzig's Gondwanaland has much to commend it but still goes for a strangely themed boat ride that owes as much to the films of John Huston, and the ideas of Disney, as it does to reality. Only Zurich's Masoala is an unequivocal success - but I'm not sure I'd want every zoo to go down this route. My experience of American zoos is limited, but I very much hope that the immersion thing is done better across the Atlantic than it is in Europe.
Again, though, I would return to the refrain that what pleases one person will leave another cold; so long as animal welfare is more than satisfactory, this diversity seems to be something to cherish rather than something to condemn.
