America's 100 Must See Exhibits

There are orangutan exhibits that encourage climbing without taking way from naturalism like Saint Louis and Woodland Park. The O-Line has absolutely zero shade which is a problem for a species that lives in dense tropical forests. The exhibit doesn't teach visitors anything about the remaining asian forests of orangutans and instead more so reminds me of King Kong. This exhibit is step back of what AZA zoos represent and is honestly a waste of money. If they wanted to devote so much money to orangutans, they could've built a large, naturalistic exhibit for orangutans and donated the rest to conservation efforts. Instead, the zoo wanted to build something flashy to show off to the rest of the zoo world. The exhibit might be "must see" for its uniqueness, but I would still describe this exhibit as a waste of money.
 
I would still describe this exhibit as a waste of money.

There is a world of difference between that statement - which you are fully entitled to make - and something as over-the-top as saying something is "the biggest waste of money in zoological history" and "holds absolutely zero educational value" however :p
 
The exhibit doesn't teach visitors anything about the remaining asian forests of orangutans and instead more so reminds me of King Kong.
There are multiple valid educational messages a zoo exhibit can have. You're correct, it doesn't do much to talk about Asian forests, but it also doesn't try to. Instead, it's very successful at highlighting the behaviors of these great apes and does an incredible job of educating on orangutan behavior and cognition. Not every exhibit has to be naturalistic, and while I enjoy a good, naturalistic exhibit as much as anyone else, I much prefer seeing an exhibit that makes no attempt and naturalism but accounts for the natural behaviors of its residents than one that creates a "natural" aesthetic (usually filled with mock rock and concrete), but doesn't encourage natural behavior in its residents. Like it or not, the IOC is much more successful, from a behavioral perspective, than the majority of other orangutan exhibits in the country, in that it actually gets the orangutans to climb and explore their surroundings.
 
There are multiple valid educational messages a zoo exhibit can have. You're correct, it doesn't do much to talk about Asian forests, but it also doesn't try to. Instead, it's very successful at highlighting the behaviors of these great apes and does an incredible job of educating on orangutan behavior and cognition. Not every exhibit has to be naturalistic, and while I enjoy a good, naturalistic exhibit as much as anyone else, I much prefer seeing an exhibit that makes no attempt and naturalism but accounts for the natural behaviors of its residents than one that creates a "natural" aesthetic (usually filled with mock rock and concrete), but doesn't encourage natural behavior in its residents. Like it or not, the IOC is much more successful, from a behavioral perspective, than the majority of other orangutan exhibits in the country, in that it actually gets the orangutans to climb and explore their surroundings.
Orangutans in the wild don't walk on a horizontal branch with zero shade around them. The O-Line provides minimal swinging and climbing opportunities.
 
Orangutans in the wild don't walk on a horizontal branch with zero shade around them. The O-Line provides minimal swinging and climbing opportunities.
And orangutans in the wild certainly don't sit on the ground all day, and yet most so-called "naturalistic" orangutan exhibits lead to orangutans sitting on the ground all day. No zoo in the country does a better job than Indianapolis of encouraging arboreal behavior in their orangutans.
 
There are orangutan exhibits that encourage climbing without taking way from naturalism like Saint Louis and Woodland Park. The O-Line has absolutely zero shade which is a problem for a species that lives in dense tropical forests. The exhibit doesn't teach visitors anything about the remaining asian forests of orangutans and instead more so reminds me of King Kong. This exhibit is step back of what AZA zoos represent and is honestly a waste of money. If they wanted to devote so much money to orangutans, they could've built a large, naturalistic exhibit for orangutans and donated the rest to conservation efforts. Instead, the zoo wanted to build something flashy to show off to the rest of the zoo world. The exhibit might be "must see" for its uniqueness, but I would still describe this exhibit as a waste of money.
I saw much more orangutan activity in my couple of hours at Indianapolis occasionally passing this exhibit than I did during my two full day visits to Saint Louis occasionally passing their exhibit roughly the same amount of times each day. I can't speak for everyone of course but I'm genuinely curious if anyone has seen any climbing orangutans at Saint Louis.
 
And orangutans in the wild certainly don't sit on the ground all day, and yet most so-called "naturalistic" orangutan exhibits lead to orangutans sitting on the ground all day. No zoo in the country does a better job than Indianapolis of encouraging arboreal behavior in their orangutans.
Saint Louis and Woodland Park certainly do encourage climbing opportunities. Also I'm not sure if the indoor rooms encourage the orangutans to climb a lot as most of the pictures of the indoor exhibits show them sitting on the ground.
 
There are orangutan exhibits that encourage climbing without taking way from naturalism like Saint Louis and Woodland Park. The exhibit doesn't teach visitors anything about the remaining asian forests of orangutans and instead more so reminds me of King Kong.
I'll loop Denver into this category as well – another exhibit that leans into naturalism and encourages climbing. What do any of those zoos specifically do to teach visitors about remaining Asian forests? From my experience at Denver in particular (as I have not been to Saint Louis or Woodland Park), I recall nothing eye catching when it came to educating me about Asian forests. Conservation messages fall short without inspiration and connection. Zoos must find ways to create, then channel those experiences and drive visitors towards educational messaging, which I think IOC does very well. I have never seen more guests reading signage than I have at IOC.

Orangutans in the wild don't walk on a horizontal branch with zero shade around them. The O-Line provides minimal swinging and climbing opportunities.
Swinging and climbing opportunities are provided in the day room, with shade. Clearances and placement are within AZA standards.

This exhibit is step back of what AZA zoos represent and is honestly a waste of money.
I don't see anything wrong with this exhibit according to the standards in the Orangutan Care Manual.
 
Last edited:
I'll loop Denver into this category as well – another exhibit that leans into naturalism and encourages climbing. What do any of those zoos specifically do to teach visitors about remaining Asian forests? From my experience at Denver in particular (as I have not been to Saint Louis or Woodland Park), I recall nothing eye catching when it came to educating me about Asian forests. Conservation messages fall short without inspiration and connection. Zoos must find ways to create, then channel those experiences and drive visitors towards educational messaging, which I think IOC does very well. I have never seen more guests reading signage than I have at IOC.

Swinging and climbing opportunities are provided in the day room, with shade. Clearances and placement are within AZA standards.

I don't see anything wrong with this exhibit according to the standards in the Orangutan Care Manual.
Here's a few paragraphs from the care manual that I think apply rather well to the IOC, and why it's a great exhibit for the apes:
Orangutans have evolved in a vertically-oriented, highly complex environment for millions of years and have lived in managed, horizontally-oriented animal care facilities for only a few score years. We often tend to build new exhibits by first looking to existing exhibits at other zoos, but we should begin by considering the orangutans’ tropical rainforest home, orangutan physical and psychological needs, orangutan health, human safety and ease of use in conjunction with previous exhibit models before undertaking new construction.

In the wild, orangutans primarily move through the canopy using both their arms and legs. One of the most important aspects of the managed physical environment is the amount of arboreal space available for both rest and locomotion (Maple, 1979; Maple & Stine, 1982; Jones, 1982). Horizontal arboreal pathways and nesting/resting platforms are the main elements of the natural physical environment for orangutans (Jones, 1982). The lack of opportunity for arboreal locomotion promotes lethargy and contributes to obesity (Maple, 1980). The combination of lethargy and living on the ground causes health hazards. Coprophagy or playing with feces often becomes more common, especially if there are no other stimulating objects in the enclosure (Hill, 1966; Maple, 1980).

Resting platforms are necessary for orangutans to fully utilize climbing structures. There should be a sufficient number of platforms so that dominant animals don’t exclude subordinates in the group. The climbing structures also need to be designed to prevent subordinate animals from being trapped at a dead-end. Platforms should be large enough for the orangutans to build nests for resting. The appropriate size will vary with the size of the individual orangutans; critically, platforms must be sturdy enough to support the weight of the orangutans as well as their nesting materials, which can at times be substantia
 
I know "must-see" doesn't equate to "best" but I do wonder is this the best that US zoos can do for an orangutan enclosure that keeps orangs off the ground? I feel like Europe might be ahead of the curve here...
 
It continues to surprise me what people are defending as a must-see exhibits, even to the point of quoting AZA care manuals. "It's small, strange, and completely unnaturalistic, but the orangutans are the most active of anywhere so it's valid." For all the descriptions about the appearances of this one we almost might have gone back 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not visiting Indy largely to have a gander at this exhibit, if I want to go see a must-see orang exhibit I'm going back to Woodland Park. In this day and age where several zoos have designed exhibits where orangutans are allowed to climb live trees and sometimes quite high in tall mature trees, Indy's exhibit is almost disgraceful in design for how new it is. Given the two ape exhibits on this list so far are Tropic World and IOC, that really makes American ape exhibits look awful if those are our must-sees.

Personally I've rarely seen orangutans inactive, be it Sacramento's relatively tiny exhibit or the splendid one at Woodland Park. Seeing climbing hasn't been unusual either, so the supposed fact that "the IOC promotes some of the most active apes" isn't hitting that much to me as it is to many people apparently.
 
I visited Indianapolis expecting to hate the IOC, but honestly, I ended up really enjoying it. It remains the only exhibit ever where I have actually seen actively climbing orangutans, and they were a joy to watch. Before visiting I always thought of them as some of the most boring zoo animals (and to some extent I still do), since they just lounge around on the ground usually, but the International Orangutan Center gave me a new appreciation for the genus Pongo.

I live here in Indianapolis and I totally agree with those praising this exhibit. The large orangutan family is very, very entertaining, both inside their large indoor area and especially when they come out and climb high above zoo visitors. It's always a thrill when there's an ape high above and almost everyone can be seen stopping to point up at the orangutan up above. This is also a great exhibit to stop in to watch the apes during cold or rainy weather.

What I do NOT understand at all is the comparison of this exhibit to a "church". There is nothing at all church-like about this innovative exhibit. I've been in many, many churches in my lifetime and none of them look at all like the IOC.
 
I live here in Indianapolis and I totally agree with those praising this exhibit. The large orangutan family is very, very entertaining, both inside their large indoor area and especially when they come out and climb high above zoo visitors. It's always a thrill when there's an ape high above and almost everyone can be seen stopping to point up at the orangutan up above. This is also a great exhibit to stop in to watch the apes during cold or rainy weather.

What I do NOT understand at all is the comparison of this exhibit to a "church". There is nothing at all church-like about this innovative exhibit. I've been in many, many churches in my lifetime and none of them look at all like the IOC.
How "large" is the indoor area. From pictures, it doesn't look very large and instead looks cramped. Also the glare is horrible for apes who live in dense rainforests.
 
It continues to surprise me what people are defending as a must-see exhibits, even to the point of quoting AZA care manuals. "It's small, strange, and completely unnaturalistic, but the orangutans are the most active of anywhere so it's valid." For all the descriptions about the appearances of this one we almost might have gone back 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not visiting Indy largely to have a gander at this exhibit, if I want to go see a must-see orang exhibit I'm going back to Woodland Park. In this day and age where several zoos have designed exhibits where orangutans are allowed to climb live trees and sometimes quite high in tall mature trees, Indy's exhibit is almost disgraceful in design for how new it is. Given the two ape exhibits on this list so far are Tropic World and IOC, that really makes American ape exhibits look awful if those are our must-sees.

Personally I've rarely seen orangutans inactive, be it Sacramento's relatively tiny exhibit or the splendid one at Woodland Park. Seeing climbing hasn't been unusual either, so the supposed fact that "the IOC promotes some of the most active apes" isn't hitting that much to me as it is to many people apparently.
At least Brookfield is building new outdoor exhibits for their gorillas and orangutans.
 
It continues to surprise me what people are defending as a must-see exhibits, even to the point of quoting AZA care manuals. "It's small, strange, and completely unnaturalistic, but the orangutans are the most active of anywhere so it's valid." For all the descriptions about the appearances of this one we almost might have gone back 40 or 50 years ago. I'm not visiting Indy largely to have a gander at this exhibit, if I want to go see a must-see orang exhibit I'm going back to Woodland Park.
I mean no disrespect by this, but comments like these make me begin to think you’re not fully grasping the point of this thread. This isn’t just a list of the best zoo exhibits in the US, because after all it’s a bit difficult to define what “best” even means in this context. After seeing the IOC myself a few years ago, I personally have mixed feelings about how it functions as an animal habitat, but there should be no question it is a must-see exhibit. Honestly my favorite orangutan exhibit is the one at Saint Louis which is filled with lush vegetation, but I never even considered it for this list because there really isn’t anything must-see about it. This is an all encompassing tour of the most famous, well done, and interesting zoo exhibits in America. No matter what you think of the IOC, I guarantee most American zoo nerds would have included in their list and I’m actually quite surprised you don’t think it should’ve been included.
Given the two ape exhibits on this list so far are Tropic World and IOC, that really makes American ape exhibits look awful if those are our must-sees
You’ve also conveniently forgotten about the Kansas City chimp exhibit, one of the greatest ape enclosures in any zoo worldwide. Inevitably there are many more great ape exhibits coming up and these obviously aren’t our only “must-sees.”
 
Also the glare is horrible for apes who live in dense rainforests.
Glare, from my experience, is a significant problem, at least at some times of day, in a lot of the outdoor exhibits I've seen. Certainly a valid concern for any exhibit with glass viewing, especially from the perspective of a zoo visitor, but I have absolutely no idea why glare has anything to do with the fact apes live in dense rainforests.
 
I mean no disrespect by this, but comments like these make me begin to think you’re not fully grasping the point of this thread. This isn’t just a list of the best zoo exhibits in the US, because after all it’s a bit difficult to define what “best” even means in this context.

I am well aware of the context of the thread, you continue to state it every time there's contention. I stated my opinion and my surprise at how many people find this a such a defendable inclusion, I did not openly challenge it as a must see nor did I attack you for including it. Clearly many people do find this a easy shoe-in for a spot, and I'm well aware I'm in the small minority on this one. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my assessment of this exhibit and referring to it as looking dated, but it really does not impress me at all given the various orang exhibits I've seen go by on this site. I can see the uniqueness factor but personally I don't find it a strong contender. Perhaps that is some bias having seen Woodland Park's excellent exhibit and not being fond of seeing primates largely confined to highly unnaturalistic quarters yearround.

No matter what you think of the IOC, I guarantee most American zoo nerds would have included in their list and I’m actually quite surprised you don’t think it should’ve been included.

Clearly they do, and this was obvious before I even posted. (Although apparently the Europeans don't seem to agree.) Your answer to my disagreement is in my last sentence for the previous quote.

You’ve also conveniently forgotten about the Kansas City chimp exhibit, one of the greatest ape enclosures in any zoo worldwide. Inevitably there are many more great ape exhibits coming up and these obviously aren’t our only “must-sees.”

I did not "conveniently forget" as you say, I had indeed forgotten. That is my fault for not double checking through and I am disappointed you decided to straight up accuse me of tailoring my argument. Kansas City is often rather under the radar and chimps are not a favorite of mine, and I forgot that one was included. Especially as it went by rather quickly with little debate as expected for such an excellent exhibit. Also while I was a bit harsh on this point;
Given the two ape exhibits on this list so far are Tropic World and IOC, that really makes American ape exhibits look awful if those are our must-sees.
I did say so far. There are a couple other quite good primate exhibits that I would be quite surprised to not see by the time the list is completed.
 
I did not openly challenge it as a must see nor did I attack you for including it.
Ok, but when you make comments like this:
It continues to surprise me what people are defending as a must-see exhibits
you have to understand how I interpreted that the way I did, especially when a majority of your posts on this thread have been negative so far. I feel like I've consistently had to debate you which is why I've repeated myself on my intentions with this project several times. I appreciate debate and discussion, but it's become rather frustrating to hear you challenge my picks over and over again more than any other member. I can respect your perspective and I want you to contribute, but comments like the one I quoted above are really discouraging to hear.
I did not "conveniently forget" as you say, I had indeed forgotten. That is my fault for not double checking through and I am disappointed you decided to straight up accuse me of tailoring my argument. Kansas City is often rather under the radar and chimps are not a favorite of mine, and I forgot that one was included. Especially as it went by rather quickly with little debate as expected for such an excellent exhibit.
I apologize for that remark, which I’ll admit was unnecessarily snarky. It just becomes frustrating when you make such harsh statements while leaving out crucial information, even if it was by accident. Regardless, that wasn't fair of me to insinuate that and I am genuinely sorry.
 
The IOC has some of the best contemporary architecture in a zoo (at least in America, there is some spectacular stuff in Europe). I know people hate on it looking like a hypocritical southern mega church but it has a genuinely thought provoking and interesting design with the references to indigenous Indonesian culture and architecture. For this alone it deserves the designation as “must see” (pachy I hope I’m interpreting the point of the thread correctly). However I do struggle with the outdoor space. On one hand you could argue it’s amazing and one of the best in the nation if you only look at it as a way to reach climbing structure. However if you see the two grass filled holes as true parts of the exhibit they are severely lacking. They lack in enrichment, both physical and sensory. There is nothing for the guest to look at and appreciate besides concrete and lawn grass. Something like a few bushes and rocks smaller isolated climbing structures within the exhibit would be nice. Something to entice the apes to not just go into the large climbing structure but actually do something outside that people can see through the glass. It just feels like a waste of a viewing area, if your going to put one there make it interesting for the animals and the people.
Also the biggest waste of money in zoo history was not the IOC, it was the promotion for the Blue World Project ;).
 
Back
Top