@DelacoursLangur I don't think it is a bad extension of the exhibit, but I am not a big fan at all as it majorly disrupts the general feel of this part of the zoo, and because I am not in favor of them spending money on them prolonging elephant holding at Antwerp for a bit longer, as it is unsustainable and will have to be ended in the mid to long term (and in my opinion should already have been or should be soon) due to the indoor facilities being poor and not realistically able to be expanded or improved. Facilities for adolescent bull elephant are needed but Antwerp is not the place to do it, and this valuable space could be put to better use at a place like Antwerp where space is definitely at a premium.
@KevinB I haven't yet seen this enclosure with my own eyes, although I will tomorrow, but I don't quite understand the criticism of the Antwerp Zoo's elephant enclosure.
We shouldn't forget that it houses only bulls. After the expansion, the outdoor enclosure is even bigger than Planckendael's bull enclosure, and I find no criticism of that enclosure. Moreover, Antwerps enclosure is much better equipped; it has more vegetation (which is completely absent in Planckendael's bull enclosure) and therefore more shade. The only better points about Planckendael are the larger swimming pool and the more spacious indoor facility, but it's not that it's so bad or small, I've seen worse.
I think the criticism on Antwerps enclosure is often (I'm not saying that's the case) simply due to the principle: elephants, the biggest land animals there are, in a small, old city zoo, that doesn't seem right, but is there really a problem if it satisfies for its inhabitants?
@Tiger Just measured the bull yard at Planckendael vs the bull yard at Antwerp - the yard at Planckendael is about 20,201.27 ft^2, or 0.46 acres. Whereas the yard at Antwerp (to my best estimate) is now 24,276.73 ft^2, or 0.55 acres. With elephants at Antwerp, my take is that if the indoor exhibit space isn't modified, or if there aren't radiant heaters outside, the zoo should make some tough decisions about housing them in the future.
I loved seeing the elephants at Antwerp, I think their outdoor yard is actually quite well done as far as the forested landscape. The expansion, hot take - I think lawns are a waste of space when space in city zoos are at a premium. Unless they are not monocultural and are utilized as wisely as possible, they generally take away from the atmosphere of a zoo. I get the term "zoological *garden*, so why not blend the two together? A couple open areas closer to the entrance and maybe the Congo Lawn are fine, but any other lawn space that doesn't have historical significance should be animal space. Back to the elephants specifically, I think the indoor stalls are pretty dark, and while they aren't the smallest elephant stalls I've seen, it's probably better that those stalls behind the scenes or act as separation stalls to a much bigger indoor space - maybe in the atrium of the Egyptian Temple? (Honestly, a flex elephant/giraffe interior barn could be a legitimately cool idea - maybe expanding into the atrium and having separate stalls for the larger mammals could be interesting - a good way of preserving the old and incorporating new ideas).
Housing surplus juvenile bulls/housing bulls in general is probably the best compromise the zoo could make as far as housing elephants in a city location - quite a few city zoos have the capacity of expanding their elephant facilities (e.g. National Zoo, Rotterdam Zoo currently, ARTIS, even places like Halle), or optimizing them in such a way that even if the elephants have a smaller than expected footprint, they at least have a highly enriching space with keepers who keep their minds stimulated with the best enrichment possible.
@StoppableSan I agree that the elephant enclosure could use some extras to stimulate its inhabitants, but remember that the section that was recently added is not quite finished; in fact, today they were still continuing work on the enclosure, because of this the elephants were inside.
What you say about sacrificing the lawns would be great if it wasn't in a protected city zoo. Indeed, the landscape (and therefore the lawns) is protected heritage, even the appearance of the zoo is protected (from how I understood it), which makes it impossible to transform the lawns into animal enclosures. On top of that, the lawns undoubtedly contribute to the overall atmosphere of the park, and they make the zoo seem larger.
As for the Egyptian temple, that too will not be allowed. I'm thinking, for example, of the beautiful mosaic floor in the atrium, which is thus also protected. I don't think it's so ideal to have animals walking on that (who then also do their defecation there).
To give an example, about 10 years ago, the zoo had plans to turn the Egyptian temple into a museum, but these plans also came into conflict with the department for heritage...
