There isn't really anything wrong with the central section of this exhibit, but the zoo certainly did not make any attempt to hide those enormous yellow/beige walls. Yikes!
There isn't really anything wrong with the central section of this exhibit, but the zoo certainly did not make any attempt to hide those enormous yellow/beige walls. Yikes!
Mogo is a small privately-owned zoo in a tourist town. For 10 months of the year there will be relatively few visitors through the gates, and it has absolutely no government subsidy for its operations or to build the "mega" multi-million dollar exhibits that you like.
I know there are certain things you do and don't like in zoos, and that's perfectly fine. But it's simply not fair to judge Mogo by a standard it cannot possibly hope to meet.
For the resources available this is a truly fantastic exhibit and I congratulate Mogo for it.
I dunno, CGSwans. I also think this is a great exhibit and am extremely proud of Mogo (which I think of as my local zoo) for achieving it, but the beige was an interesting choice for the walls. I think I would have gone for something a bit more subdued, but it certainly does make the structure stand out.
I have not seen this exhibit in person but it seems from this photo that it would not haven taken much more (berming up the central ridgeline of the exhibit some more) to help more effectively screen the wall. Even if it was just four of five feet and some brown paint it would have greatly reduced the impact of the containment wall and would not have cost very much to undertake. That being said it does look like a nice exhibit.
Mogo is a small privately-owned zoo in a tourist town. For 10 months of the year there will be relatively few visitors through the gates, and it has absolutely no government subsidy for its operations or to build the "mega" multi-million dollar exhibits that you like.
I know there are certain things you do and don't like in zoos, and that's perfectly fine. But it's simply not fair to judge Mogo by a standard it cannot possibly hope to meet.
For the resources available this is a truly fantastic exhibit and I congratulate Mogo for it.
It is nice to read some comments from a landscape architect (whom I've actually met!) and I know a number of folks in the industry who would say something similar. Personally I'm thrilled that Mogo Zoo has provided a home for gorillas in Australia and I have relatives near Canberra who recently visited and sent me some photos. My only quibble with an obviously delightful exhibit is that looming wall...ugh. I'm reminded of the San Francisco Zoo's gorilla exhibit that was built almost 35 years ago as in that case there is also a dominant wall that is seen by visitors from all angles. The San Francisco exhibit is much larger and very well-furnished but the wall is an annoyance for those that wish to see it submerged beneath a façade of vegetation. Constructive criticism is also prevalent on the photo thread below:
I have not seen this exhibit in person but it seems from this photo that it would not haven taken much more (berming up the central ridgeline of the exhibit some more) to help more effectively screen the wall. Even if it was just four of five feet and some brown paint it would have greatly reduced the impact of the containment wall and would not have cost very much to undertake. That being said it does look like a nice exhibit.
I've seen it twice. You could reduce the profile of the wall but removing it from sight entirely would be simply impossible. Also, if I recall correctly this exhibit was the subject of a prolonged and difficult funding effort to get it built in the first place. I don't have your expertise and don't know how much berming would cost.
My point about judging exhibits by the resources available to the zoo in question stands. Not all zoos are capable of looking like Woodland Park. Sometimes a bit of recognition of what an exhibit is, rather than what it isn't and can never be, wouldn't go astray. At Melbourne Zoo I would critique this exhibit heavily. At Mogo it's a great achievement. That's not a slight at Mogo, just a recognition that they don't have the full force of government subsidies to rely on.
Again it comes down to a question of personal taste. I have no problem with the wall but would prefer slightly longer grass; maybe they could try what Dublin Zoo did and have a mixture of flowering plants, herbs, grasses and so on. But I return to the basic question, does the wall need to be hidden? In my opinion no.
In my opinion, if it was a matter of taking away climbing opportunities in order to more effectively hide the wall then I think they made the correct decision! My point was only that it would not have cost a lot more (if anything if they have a stockpile of soil) to add a little fill dirt and choose a wall paint color that starts to blend into the background more than it does. It would have also allowed the animals a higher "stance" from the public which is considered good practice in the design of gorilla exhibits. With the nature of the budget that you describe it seems like they made the right decisions. Having worked on many projects with wide ranging budgets I can appreciate the impact budget can have on an exhibit and celebrate establishments that do the most with what they have!
There are many little "tricks" you can use to really enhance the animal and visitor experience with little to no extra expense, just a little creativity and good design decisions. Does the wall need to be hidden? I don't think so either. Would it have been a better exhibit if it was? I think so.
