America's 100 Must See Exhibits

[pachyderm pro]

I had typed out a post that would have responded to some of the individual comments that have been made, but it was getting way too long and convoluted. Instead, I'm just going to say this.

I feel like I've said this time and time again, but just so I am absolutely crystal clear, this list is entirely subjective. What constitutes "must-see" to me may not to others and that is fine. In the case of the stork aviary in particular, I specifically went back to Racine after several years just to see this exhibit again. I also recall another member who I spoke to about the exhibit that had specifically included Racine in his travel plans because of the exhibit (and not just because of the species it contained) which fits in to the criteria @Chlidonias stated above (which I mostly agree with). I'm going to quote @lintworm again because he put it very nicely earlier in this thread, but nobody is going to agree with all of the picks, just as I would likely not agree with someone else's 100 "must-see" exhibits.

No two persons will ever agree on the exact same 100 exhibits, but that is also not the idea. If @pachyderm pro can select a list with 5 hard disagrees and 10 exhibits that someone else would not have chosen, but can see that they belong in the list, that would be a tremendous achievement. When it gets interesting is if these differences can be discussed in a polite way. So it means that you have to be open to other views and not get upset when your favourites aren't included.

So if there are only two hard disagrees so far, I don't think I'm doing all that bad.

Also, I can't help but be amused that many of the same members who are vocalizing their displeasure against my picks are actively "liking" each of my posts. This is a genuine question; if you don't agree with my reasoning for picking a certain exhibit, why do you give it a like? I've also noticed a few select members who's only contributions to the thread have been liking posts that disagree with me which I must admit has been very irritating. I have no problem with people disagreeing with an individual pick, but hearing people taking digs at the list as a whole purely over what they've speculated has become extremely discouraging, especially when we are only a quarter of the way through.

I don't want it to seem like I haven't enjoyed doing this project over the last month, which I definitely have. It's been extremely rewarding and I'm glad so many different members are participating and following along. To those who think I have a bias towards exhibits located close to me, those who think I'm picking random obscure exhibits just to have them, or those who are worried there aren't enough exhibits from a certain state on the list, please just be patient. Feel free to disagree when you do, but all I ask is to follow @Coelacanth18 and just give me the benefit of the doubt and wait until we're all finished before expressing reservations about the list as a whole.

Now with that said, there is just one other point I want to touch on...

Deja Vu to ZooChat Cup Season 2.

I know what people speculated, but I did not fix a single aspect of that competition. I will die on this hill.

 

[15399]

Also, I can't help but be amused that many of the same members who are vocalizing their displeasure against my picks are actively "liking" each of my posts. This is a genuine question; if you don't agree with my reasoning for picking a certain exhibit, why do you give it a like?

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but for me the "Like" button isn't purely a tool for expressing agreement with a post. I will "like" a post if I feel it adds value to the community, is a well-thought out comment, and does a good job of articulating an idea- even if I happen to disagree with some opinions expressed. I've liked almost, if not all, of your posts in this thread for this reason. While I agree with some and disagree with others, they are informed, well-thought out posts that add value to the forum and help create interesting discussion. Even when there are picks that I don't agree with, they still yield interesting discussion in what is one of the strongest threads on ZooChat at the moment.

 

[pachyderm pro]

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but for me the "Like" button isn't purely a tool for expressing agreement with a post. I will "like" a post if I feel it adds value to the community, is a well-thought out comment, and does a good job of articulating an idea- even if I happen to disagree with some opinions expressed. I've liked almost, if not all, of your posts in this thread for this reason. While I agree with some and disagree with others, they are informed, well-thought out posts that add value to the forum and help create interesting discussion. Even when there are picks that I don't agree with, they still yield interesting discussion in what is one of the strongest threads on ZooChat at the moment.

I can accept that and I appreciate your kind words. As a token of gratitude, I will like your post.

 

[PSO]

@pachyderm pro I like this submission. I was spoiled in seeing lesser adjuncts at Bronx and also Cincy but not in the setting Racine provides. Not to mention co-habitated with a lesser displayed cervid species. I'll hit "like" but wanted to tip my hat to you as well, especially if they may be phased out in the future

 

[Coelacanth18]

I actually read Coelacanth's post as "Africa Rocks" without even realising I was mis-reading.

In fairness, I could've put either one there and it still would've worked

rarity isn't supposed to be a factor, per this comment:

However a couple of the controversial picks have in fact ignored the rarity rule

We must have interpreted that post differently: "an exhibit that... showcases a particularly odd species in a noteworthy way" reads to me like rarities can very much be elevated to a pick, as long as their enclosure highlights them. I'd say a dedicated walk-through aviary can be construed as "showcasing... in a noteworthy way"; not sure it meets my own threshold personally, but I also don't think it's logically inconsistent.

Honestly, if it were me writing this thread I would have just said "yes, the species chosen can be a criteria" - but given what I said before about not being an exhibit person, there's a reason I write other kinds of threads for instance: if San Diego's gharial and Asian turtle pond instead had a couple alligators and a bunch of Red-eared Sliders in it, I wouldn't have understood that pick. For me, the species in the pond are very much a part of why someone should go see it.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but for me the "Like" button isn't purely a tool for expressing agreement with a post. I will "like" a post if I feel it adds value to the community, is a well-thought out comment, and does a good job of articulating an idea- even if I happen to disagree with some opinions expressed.

Seconded. I value content and discussion, so if it's purely a difference of opinion I don't mind giving likes to things I have critiques about. For example, I appreciate the work people put into making species lists even if there's a few errors or I don't like the formatting they used. But some people do see likes as tacit agreement, so I try to be mindful about the context.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

This is a genuine question; if you don't agree with my reasoning for picking a certain exhibit, why do you give it a like?

It's possible to thoroughly disagree with an opinion/statement whilst still respecting it, and wanting to acknowledge the work put into it

 

[Great Argus]

I feel like I've said this time and time again, but just so I am absolutely crystal clear, this list is entirely subjective. What constitutes "must-see" to me may not to others and that is fine. In the case of the stork aviary in particular, I specifically went back to Racine after several years just to see this exhibit again. I also recall another member who I spoke to about the exhibit that had specifically included Racine in his travel plans because of the exhibit (and not just because of the species it contained) which fits in to the criteria @Chlidonias stated above (which I mostly agree with). I'm going to quote @lintworm again because he put it very nicely earlier in this thread, but nobody is going to agree with all of the picks, just as I would likely not agree with someone else's 100 "must-see" exhibits.

Which is fair - but doing it based on your own subjectiveness does mean you are likely encounter some picks that find more disagreement than agreement. It's your pick and that's fine, but it does also somewhat loosen the definition of a must-see - one person's must-see exhibit isn't necessarily one the majority find as a must see. I think a lot of the argument is on grounds of thinking (or being of the opinion) that the choices should all be specifically chosen from the top exhibits, not necessarily subjective to the list creator's opinion. The trend for controversial picks all hailing from the Midwest and mostly zoos you have visited seems to be influencing this somewhat negatively.

To those who think I have a bias towards exhibits located close to me, those who think I'm picking random obscure exhibits just to have them, or those who are worried there aren't enough exhibits from a certain state on the list, please just be patient. Feel free to disagree when you do, but all I ask is to follow @Coelacanth18 and just give me the benefit of the doubt and wait until we're all finished before expressing reservations about the list as a whole.

I do agree with this - we still have a lot of exhibits yet to see, and expected choices will continue to be added. Bemoaning that a certain complex isn't here would be silly. You can't judge a whole unknown list by the known quarter of it.

 

[Chlidonias]

I feel like I've said this time and time again, but just so I am absolutely crystal clear, this list is entirely subjective. What constitutes "must-see" to me may not to others and that is fine. In the case of the stork aviary in particular, I specifically went back to Racine after several years just to see this exhibit again. I also recall another member who I spoke to about the exhibit that had specifically included Racine in his travel plans because of the exhibit (and not just because of the species it contained) which fits in to the criteria @Chlidonias stated above (which I mostly agree with). I'm going to quote @lintworm again because he put it very nicely earlier in this thread, but nobody is going to agree with all of the picks, just as I would likely not agree with someone else's 100 "must-see" exhibits.

Nobody (probably) is confused over the list being subjective. It can't be anything other than subjective. But I really think that if an exhibit is included mostly just because you personally like it, which appears to be your position for the stork aviary, that makes one wonder why give the thread the title of "must-see exhibits" and not just "really good exhibits that I like".

I have only been to zoos in Australasia and Asia (apart for one visit to Frankfurt Zoo), so when there is a thread on the 100 "must-see" exhibits in America I would expect that almost every one would make me think "I have to see that". Instead with several of them I genuinely am bewildered by their inclusion because there seems to be nothing outstanding about them and the description you give tells me nothing meaningful, and when I post to ask why it is in the thread Americans respond with the same question. That's weird to me.

 

[PSO]

"Really good" and "must see" are semantics. It's all subjective.

 

[pachyderm pro]

We must have interpreted that post differently: "an exhibit that... showcases a particularly odd species in a noteworthy way" reads to me like rarities can very much be elevated to a pick, as long as their enclosure highlights them. I'd say a dedicated walk-through aviary can be construed as "showcasing... in a noteworthy way"; not sure it meets my own threshold personally, but I also don't think it's logically inconsistent.

Essentially what I meant is that an exhibit that is poorly designed or generally forgettable wouldn't be elevated to "must-see" status purely because of it having a bunch of rare species. Like I said though, if it focuses on an unusual species very well, that is absolutely something I'd consider must-see - San Diego's ghairal pond being a perfect example. At the end of the day I'll admit it's a bit hard not to factor in the species held and it's a bit tricky where to draw the line, but I think I made my point clear.

It's possible to thoroughly disagree with an opinion/statement whilst still respecting it, and wanting to acknowledge the work put into it

Yes, like I said to @Neil chace I can understand this. I retract that part of my post and I do greatly appreciate all of the likes, it was just an observation I made.

I think a lot of the argument is on grounds of thinking (or being of the opinion) that the choices should all be specifically chosen from the top exhibits, not necessarily subjective to the list creator's opinion. The trend for controversial picks all hailing from the Midwest and mostly zoos you have visited seems to be influencing this somewhat negatively.

Do keep in mind this trend of controversial picks from the midwest comes from just two exhibits. I'll concede that the randomized order hasn't been doing me any favors, but I want to reiterate this isn't indicative of the list as a whole. There is no way to define what the "best" exhibits are which is why exercises like this can be very interesting. If this were just famous mega-complexes that most zoo-nerds already know of, it wouldn't be very fun. I'm not going out of my way to find obscure exhibits to put on the list just to make it more interesting, but I'm more inclined to include an unknown exhibit that does something extremely well than a more generic mega-complex.

Anyway, while there will be other deep cuts appearing later on, I don't think there will be another exhibit this controversial. The others are bit more impressive both visually and in sheer size so I imagine they will be far more agreeable. You never know how people will react, but I will keep at it.

 

[Great Argus]

Do keep in mind this trend of controversial picks from the midwest comes from just two exhibits. I'll concede that the randomized order hasn't been doing me any favors, but I want to reiterate this isn't indicative of the list as a whole.

Four, arguably with Columbus HoA and Indy's Dolphinarium. Tropic World got more of a pass by being historically significant. No point in dredging those arguments up again though.

I'm not going out of my way to find obscure exhibits to put on the list just to make it more interesting, but I'm more inclined to include an unknown exhibit that does something extremely well than a more generic mega-complex.

Which is fair, and something I appreciate seeing for the most part. I'd half forgotten about Oregon Coast's seabird aviary, which is well done, not something that can be done in much of the country, and holds some unusual species. At the same time however, other lesser known exhibits have left many of us scratching our heads in confusion; Henry Vilas and Racine namely. They're nice exhibits in their own right, but for those two I don't understand what's landed them here, nor do most others it seems. Which raises the question for me, is it actually a true must see if a significant majority declines it? Or rather a personal preference entry based on the subjectivity of the list?
That's the fun part of subjective threads really. Who knows what way it's going to turn. Anyways, carry on, there's a long way to go yet and I think we're all curious to see what's next.

 

[Joseph G]

I’ll go ahead and throw this in the mix too because someone mentioned most of these being @pachyderm pro ’s photos: he did ask me if I could photograph a few of his picks so better imagery would be available. I wouldn’t factor his photos being sourced as evidence of bias. It’s simply what’s available for some of these.

With that in mind, similar to real estate photography (and no disrespect to any of your photos pachy I promise!), it’s a lot easier to sell a house if a real estate photographer comes out with the goal of helping to sell it rather than the owners haphazardly going from room to room with a cell phone. I encourage anyone skeptical of any exhibit on this list go beyond this site and look up additional photos or even a walkthrough video to really get a good idea of these picks. I would love a world where I could bring my gear bag out to all of these and truly sell each one in all their glory but life gets in the way

 

[JVM]

. If this were just famous mega-complexes that most zoo-nerds already know of, it wouldn't be very fun. I'm not going out of my way to find obscure exhibits to put on the list just to make it more interesting, but I'm more inclined to include an unknown exhibit that does something extremely well than a more generic mega-complex.

I would personally like to really second this aspect of the list.

There are a lot of repeated themes in the zoo world right now -- there are probably five or six great polar bear exhibits that come up regularly here, including Detroit and San Diego, for example. There are tons of great ape habitats, probably enough to take up ten slots on the list or more. There are a lot of hippo exhibits with underwater viewing now. Pretty much any dedicated mega-complex in the last few decades is going to outrank a badger exhibit or a waterbird aviary. I don't think fifteen ape habitats, five polar bear habitats, five elephant exhibits, five hippo exhibits, five aviaries, five reptile houses and so forth would be a fun list to read. I don't think that's what any zoochatter would want to see out of the list, but I also feel that is what an 'objective' list without any user's 'personal bias' would look like. Well-funded megacomplexes for abc animals will recieve the most funding and most attention. I also need to note an objectively great list probably wouldn't include a single indoor mammal exhibit, because none of those really meet the concept of looking good without an animal inside, and reptile and bird houses don't meet that standard are still exceptional.

Not to mention that most modern mega-complexes draw from a smaller handful of bio-regions -- the African savannah, South American rainforests, the western United States, the African rainforest, the Asian rainforest, Oceans, Australia just in general, Asia just in general sometimes... and then you get a very small handful of higher institutions that have the privilege to represent Madagascar, Ethiopia... even Australia beyond macropod/emu combinations is something mostly reserved for larger institutions. The sheer number of mega-complexes that are themed around an African savannah! Every zoo seems to need one. I think any of those is, again, going to be 'better' than any small exhibit, but a list full of them would be such a bore. I've heard more about Columbus' controversial Savannah than any truly great one. A lot of other bioregions recieve an outsize focus but the number of abc animals in a Savannah outright demand almost every zoo to build one, outside a tiny handful of limited focus institutions. Consequently even a great Savannah exhibit has trouble sounding like a 'must-see' to me when there will be dozens of good if not great savannahs inevitably on any zoo road trip.

There is a lot of discourse about the completely justified reduction in species in the AZA resulting in zoos becoming repetitious but very little about how repetitious major exhibit plans are becoming, because the care standards for the major abc species will of course need to be the same at every institution at base. Brookfield and Lincoln Park renovated their bear habitats within six years and both promoted how the new dens would allow for breeding (that has not happened) and increased land area for the animals and I think both even included waterfall features. Renovations to gorilla habitats usually necesitate room for a bachelor troop. These are all very good things, and they mean better welfare for the animals - but a lot of great exhibits are becoming more alike, and what makes them distinctive mostly comes down to space or guest enhancements like signage or theming. Architecture and enrichment come up but are much more controversial standards as some zoochatters do not care about 'historic' exhibits and enrichment sometimes infringes on naturalism.

Being a zoochatter for seven years now, even with a long hiatus, some of the most famous good exhibits I have heard about to death -- and I feel like I can count on only two hands the number of zoos that consistently come up as having truly great exhibits. It would also be a list dominated by less than ten zoos, none of which I have visited personally. There isn't a single individual exhibit in Chicago that I think I could plaster and say 'everyone from around the country, you need to see this', in spite of having three major facilities. My shifting opinion on Tropic World is well-documented and while I love the Pepper Family Wildlife Center, I don't think anyone who lives in California or New York needs to come to see it. The Shedd Aquarium doesn't really live or die by any individual exhibit so much as by collection. I again imagine the greatest exhibits in the country would come from a small handful of truly great zoos.

All of this is me leading to saying that I personally appreciate seeing exhibits that feel very distinctive and unique, and not simply the best versions and originators of stock exhibits at the top handful of institutions, and as someone who hasn't had the pleasure to travel the country yet like so many others here have already been able to do, I really appreciate hearing more and learning about exhibits I have not seen, especially distinctive and unique experiences. The stork aviary I actually am aware of and looking forward to visiting Racine to see, especially as I am unlikely to visit the Bronx any time in the near future and I have never been through an indoor aviary with anything so large. If there are similar great exhibits as other users have claimed, it's not something I've previously heard about... of course, they may be future entries on Pachy's list at this stage, which we are only just over a quarter through!

 

[15399]

I don't think fifteen ape habitats, five polar bear habitats, five elephant exhibits, five hippo exhibits, five aviaries, five reptile houses and so forth would be a fun list to read.

I think if this was an "objective" list like you said, there would be a lot more than five elephant complexes, lol. That's a species that the US has no shortage of great exhibits for. Rosamond Gifford, Sedgwick County, Oregon, Cleveland, Houston, Dallas, Omaha, Oklahoma City, I could go on.

I also need to note an objectively great list probably wouldn't include a single indoor mammal exhibit, because none of those really meet the concept of looking good without an animal inside, and reptile and bird houses don't meet that standard are still exceptional.

I'd disagree with this part. There are a number of really good indoor exhibits for (mostly smaller) mammal exhibits, such as Bronx's Madagascar, Lincoln Park's African Journey, Buffalo's Rainforest Falls, Omaha's Lied Jungle and Desert Dome, etc. Plus if historic value is a criteria, both Tropic World at Brookfield and Jungle World at Bronx (especially the latter is incredible regardless of its impressive history). There are a number of great indoor exhibits for mammals- just not necessarily for large, charismatic megafauna.

I've heard more about Columbus' controversial Savannah than any truly great one.

This thread is I'm pretty certain the only place where Heart of Africa is controversial, and I'm honestly still surprised at how controversial of a take it was. It's one of the best recreations of the African Savanna out there, both in terms of its large, spacious mixed species ungulate exhibits, and its impressive carnivore exhibits as well. Sure, there are a few rather heavily themed segments, but is that really a bad thing?

There isn't a single individual exhibit in Chicago that I think I could plaster and say 'everyone from around the country, you need to see this', in spite of having three major facilities.

I'm certain @birdsandbats would disagree with this and make a plug for his favorite South American exhibit in the country, but I'd also say that Lincoln Park's African Journey deserves a spot as a must-see exhibit, as one of the best repurposings of a historical building. That's what I could most easily argue as the top exhibit in the city that most deserves a spot on the list. It's one I'd be very surprised if by the end hasn't been covered.

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

Yeah, adding to this, personally speaking, if that aviary held anything other than the stork or the tufted deer, I would really doubt it would even come across to the mind. This is definitely an inclusion that I heavily disagree on to be on this list. This exhibit as a whole, isn't really a standout av

I absolutely think that amazing presentations of a species is a worthy inclusions on this list, for example, the badger exhibit of Henry Vilas Zoo has an unique presentation, signage, and that allows the visitors to engage with the badgers in a way there aren't many zoos that do this. A walkthrough aviary is something that even I can find back in Indonesia, and I fail to find anything that makes it stand out other than it holds the rare stork not a lot of zoos held.

I can totally live my life knowing this exhibit doesn't exist and I would miss absolutely nothing. If I had given the chance of visiting either the stork aviary or something with the likes of Heart of Africa, which while there are so many zoos out there with giant african savannah megacomplexes, I would easily choose to go to Heart of Africa in a heartbeat.

 

[aardvark250]

First of all i appreciate @pachyderm pro works in this thread, I really enjoy every inclusion of it. For this inclusion, it is indeed a very nice aviary with 2 rare and important species. And there's nothing wrong with that. And I have no problem with pachy choosing exhibits he is more familiar with, afterall it is easier to get your own feelings when you have actually been in the place.
Is it must-see? idk. Do i have problem with its inclusion? Not really.

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

I would personally like to really second this aspect of the list.

There are a lot of repeated themes in the zoo world right now -- there are probably five or six great polar bear exhibits that come up regularly here, including Detroit and San Diego, for example. There are tons of great ape habitats, probably enough to take up ten slots on the list or more. There are a lot of hippo exhibits with underwater viewing now. Pretty much any dedicated mega-complex in the last few decades is going to outrank a badger exhibit or a waterbird aviary. I don't think fifteen ape habitats, five polar bear habitats, five elephant exhibits, five hippo exhibits, five aviaries, five reptile houses and so forth would be a fun list to read. I don't think that's what any zoochatter would want to see out of the list, but I also feel that is what an 'objective' list without any user's 'personal bias' would look like. Well-funded megacomplexes for abc animals will recieve the most funding and most attention. I also need to note an objectively great list probably wouldn't include a single indoor mammal exhibit, because none of those really meet the concept of looking good without an animal inside, and reptile and bird houses don't meet that standard are still exceptional.

Not to mention that most modern mega-complexes draw from a smaller handful of bio-regions -- the African savannah, South American rainforests, the western United States, the African rainforest, the Asian rainforest, Oceans, Australia just in general, Asia just in general sometimes... and then you get a very small handful of higher institutions that have the privilege to represent Madagascar, Ethiopia... even Australia beyond macropod/emu combinations is something mostly reserved for larger institutions. The sheer number of mega-complexes that are themed around an African savannah! Every zoo seems to need one. I think any of those is, again, going to be 'better' than any small exhibit, but a list full of them would be such a bore. I've heard more about Columbus' controversial Savannah than any truly great one. A lot of other bioregions recieve an outsize focus but the number of abc animals in a Savannah outright demand almost every zoo to build one, outside a tiny handful of limited focus institutions. Consequently even a great Savannah exhibit has trouble sounding like a 'must-see' to me when there will be dozens of good if not great savannahs inevitably on any zoo road trip.

Regarding your Polar Bear exhibit examples though, I have some disagreement in that aspect. For example, let's take Louisville's Glacier Run, Columbus's Polar Frontier, and Detroit's Arctic Ring of Life. They all house the same animal, that being the polar bear. However, lumping them all on the same spot clearly doesn't do any of them justice, because while they house the same animal, they are completely different in architecture, design, and experience. Columbus allows you to view the bears in a beautiful underwater viewing fashion that you cant find on any other zoos, Louisville brought the experiemce of living in an Arctic village expedition for seeing the polar bears. While Detroit brings the arctic snow life that we all know polar bear lives in, with an impressive predator prey viewing of the neighboring seals as well. You can easily see why they really stand out, and it's all about the presentation. Can you find this kind of stuff in other zoos? If you can, how do you make it stand among the rest?

On contrast, lets look at some of the hippo exhibits, Fort Worth, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee. Do they have anything in their hippo exhibits that make them really stand out and make you say: Hey, I can never found this kind of stuff in other zoos! For me personally, I clearly wouldn't mind if they're all lumped together into one spot under the superior Memphis's ZRHC, because really, you can easily found this kind of stuff in other zoos. However, if the choice is between Cheyenne Mountain, Disney, and Memphis, you cannot lump them all together because again, they are clearly different in terms of design and is a must see in their own way. If the list is full of repetitive hippo exhibits, I would not find it fun to read. However, if the list is full of exhibits with so many different designs and housing for the animals, even if they're the same animals I wouldn't mind at all. Because they have their flair of uniqueness that earns them a spot.

You can ask yourself about the stork aviary, that is "Would you be able to see this kind of aviary anywhere else in other zoos?" Sure, you might not see the stork themselves, but in terms of the aviary itself, in my personal opinion you can definitely see the aviary anywhere else.

 

[birdsandbats]

I would personally like to really second this aspect of the list.

There are a lot of repeated themes in the zoo world right now -- there are probably five or six great polar bear exhibits that come up regularly here, including Detroit and San Diego, for example. There are tons of great ape habitats, probably enough to take up ten slots on the list or more. There are a lot of hippo exhibits with underwater viewing now. Pretty much any dedicated mega-complex in the last few decades is going to outrank a badger exhibit or a waterbird aviary. I don't think fifteen ape habitats, five polar bear habitats, five elephant exhibits, five hippo exhibits, five aviaries, five reptile houses and so forth would be a fun list to read. I don't think that's what any zoochatter would want to see out of the list, but I also feel that is what an 'objective' list without any user's 'personal bias' would look like. Well-funded megacomplexes for abc animals will recieve the most funding and most attention. I also need to note an objectively great list probably wouldn't include a single indoor mammal exhibit, because none of those really meet the concept of looking good without an animal inside, and reptile and bird houses don't meet that standard are still exceptional.

Not to mention that most modern mega-complexes draw from a smaller handful of bio-regions -- the African savannah, South American rainforests, the western United States, the African rainforest, the Asian rainforest, Oceans, Australia just in general, Asia just in general sometimes... and then you get a very small handful of higher institutions that have the privilege to represent Madagascar, Ethiopia... even Australia beyond macropod/emu combinations is something mostly reserved for larger institutions. The sheer number of mega-complexes that are themed around an African savannah! Every zoo seems to need one. I think any of those is, again, going to be 'better' than any small exhibit, but a list full of them would be such a bore. I've heard more about Columbus' controversial Savannah than any truly great one. A lot of other bioregions recieve an outsize focus but the number of abc animals in a Savannah outright demand almost every zoo to build one, outside a tiny handful of limited focus institutions. Consequently even a great Savannah exhibit has trouble sounding like a 'must-see' to me when there will be dozens of good if not great savannahs inevitably on any zoo road trip.

There is a lot of discourse about the completely justified reduction in species in the AZA resulting in zoos becoming repetitious but very little about how repetitious major exhibit plans are becoming, because the care standards for the major abc species will of course need to be the same at every institution at base. Brookfield and Lincoln Park renovated their bear habitats within six years and both promoted how the new dens would allow for breeding (that has not happened) and increased land area for the animals and I think both even included waterfall features. Renovations to gorilla habitats usually necesitate room for a bachelor troop. These are all very good things, and they mean better welfare for the animals - but a lot of great exhibits are becoming more alike, and what makes them distinctive mostly comes down to space or guest enhancements like signage or theming. Architecture and enrichment come up but are much more controversial standards as some zoochatters do not care about 'historic' exhibits and enrichment sometimes infringes on naturalism.

Being a zoochatter for seven years now, even with a long hiatus, some of the most famous good exhibits I have heard about to death -- and I feel like I can count on only two hands the number of zoos that consistently come up as having truly great exhibits. It would also be a list dominated by less than ten zoos, none of which I have visited personally. There isn't a single individual exhibit in Chicago that I think I could plaster and say 'everyone from around the country, you need to see this', in spite of having three major facilities. My shifting opinion on Tropic World is well-documented and while I love the Pepper Family Wildlife Center, I don't think anyone who lives in California or New York needs to come to see it. The Shedd Aquarium doesn't really live or die by any individual exhibit so much as by collection. I again imagine the greatest exhibits in the country would come from a small handful of truly great zoos.

All of this is me leading to saying that I personally appreciate seeing exhibits that feel very distinctive and unique, and not simply the best versions and originators of stock exhibits at the top handful of institutions, and as someone who hasn't had the pleasure to travel the country yet like so many others here have already been able to do, I really appreciate hearing more and learning about exhibits I have not seen, especially distinctive and unique experiences. The stork aviary I actually am aware of and looking forward to visiting Racine to see, especially as I am unlikely to visit the Bronx any time in the near future and I have never been through an indoor aviary with anything so large. If there are similar great exhibits as other users have claimed, it's not something I've previously heard about... of course, they may be future entries on Pachy's list at this stage, which we are only just over a quarter through!

I'm shocked you don't think Shedd has any must-see exhibits. Nearly every exhibit in the aquarium is a blow-your-socks off incredible exhibit! I would travel from quite a long ways away to see even just one.

 

[SwampDonkey]

25. Desert Lives
Phoenix Zoo, AZ
Opened: 2000
Size: 10 Acres (4 Hectares)
Inhabitants: Arabian Oryx, Desert Bighorn Sheep

Conservation is the core purpose of modern zoos, but few other institutions are as famous for bringing a species back from the brink of extinction as Phoenix with the Arabian oryx. There's a reason the ancestry of most wild Arabian oryx can be traced back to Arizona and what's been accomplished here is indeed remarkable. In the 60s, the zoo took on the entire remaining population of both wild and captive individuals in a last ditch effort to breed and return the species to their native range. The arid desert climate of Phoenix proved to be the perfect place for the species to thrive in captivity with close to 250 calves born, a majority of which have been reintroduced to the wild. The oryx paddock is picturesque and perfectly integrated with the desert landscape. Blending in even better are the adjacent multi-acre bighorn sheep enclosures, as the zoo essentially just fenced in a pair of enormous buttes which works brilliantly. This one-two punch of world class desert habitats is spectacular, complete with a tremendous conservation success story as the cherry on top.

@Ituri

@Ituri

@snowleopard

@snowleopard

@Arizona Docent

Similar Exhibits: There are other well done desert trails in the Southwestern US, but I'd like to take this time to highlight a few other outstanding caprid enclosures particularly on the west coast. The habitats at San Diego Zoo Safari Park and The Living Desert are among some of the greatest, utilizing existing hillside terrain.

San Diego Zoo Safari Park

@ThylacineAlive

The Living Desert

@Coelacanth18

@ThylacineAlive

I totally agree on this one, it will be even better when they finish the predator area that is under construction now.

 

[Persephone]

I'm shocked you don't think Shedd has any must-see exhibits. Nearly every exhibit in the aquarium is a blow-your-socks off incredible exhibit! I would travel from quite a long ways away to see even just one.

Bare minimum I’d give Shedd the Pacific Northwest area. Probably also Amazon Rising, although I could see something like Mesker Park or the Smithsonian’s Amazon areas being deemed better due to their size / theming, respectively.