America's 100 Must See Exhibits

[lintworm]

This is an exhibit that I'd disagree with the inclusion of on this list. While certainly architecturally impressive, and if this list was ranking must-see zoo architecture, or must-see artwork in zoos, I'd absolutely see why this building would be a worthy inclusion. However, from the perspective of a zoo exhibit, this elephant exhibit simply seems... average. Personally, I wouldn't consider an exhibit must-see solely for its historical significance and architectural marvel, when the exhibit itself doesn't stand out in any which way. This building is no more of a must-see serving as an elephant house than it would be as a zoo's entrance or gift shop. I can think of a number of historically significant exhibits that are much more impressive, from an exhibitry perspective, and I'd be much more inclined to include a different historically significant exhibit instead of one that serves as a mediocre elephant habitat.

I think you are mixing up the terms enclosure and exhibit. While as an enclosure it might not hold up well to any modern standard, but as an exhibit this is a fantastic historical building. By your reasoning some of the greatest historical zoo architecture such as Budapest's elephant house and Antwerp's Egyptian temple should not feature on the Europe list. That would omit what in my opinion are two of the three most beautiful historical buildings in a European zoo (Berlin's antelope house being the third).

 

[RIPPompadour]

I think you are mixing up the terms enclosure and exhibit. While as an enclosure it might not hold up well to any modern standard, but as an exhibit this is a fantastic historical building. By your reasoning some of the greatest historical zoo architecture such as Budapest's elephant house and Antwerp's Egyptian temple should not feature on the Europe list. That would omit what in my opinion are two of the three most beautiful historical buildings in a European zoo (Berlin's antelope house being the third).

It might be helpful to build a set of working definitions for those terms (enclosure, exhibit, habitat, etc.) that can seem to be used interchangeably - both for the purposes of this thread and the website more broadly. Pachyderm Pro provided one inferrable definition in their introductory post.

 

[Pleistocene891]

I think you are mixing up the terms enclosure and exhibit. While as an enclosure it might not hold up well to any modern standard, but as an exhibit this is a fantastic historical building. By your reasoning some of the greatest historical zoo architecture such as Budapest's elephant house and Antwerp's Egyptian temple should not feature on the Europe list. That would omit what in my opinion are two of the three most beautiful historical buildings in a European zoo (Berlin's antelope house being the third).

Historical architecture does not automatically mean must see exhibit in my view. The exhibit quality still needs to be average at the minimum. Berlin’s antelope house certainly looks nice on the inside, but the enclosures are small and barren.

 

[15399]

I think you are mixing up the terms enclosure and exhibit. While as an enclosure it might not hold up well to any modern standard, but as an exhibit this is a fantastic historical building. By your reasoning some of the greatest historical zoo architecture such as Budapest's elephant house and Antwerp's Egyptian temple should not feature on the Europe list. That would omit what in my opinion are two of the three most beautiful historical buildings in a European zoo (Berlin's antelope house being the third).

I'm not mixing up those terms, I simply disagree that the building alone warrants being a must-see. A beautiful, historical building would be no more "must-see" serving as a zoo exhibit than it would be serving as a zoo entrance or gift shop, and yet if this building was the latter it wouldn't even qualify for the list. Judging this as an exhibit, not a building, means that the building should be used appropriately, and the animal portions contained should be notable in some way. If one made a list of must-see zoo architecture, this building would certainly be a worthy inclusion, but on a list of exhibits it, in my opinion, does not belong as there is nothing notable about it other than a historical, architecturally-impressive building.

 

[lintworm]

I'm not mixing up those terms, I simply disagree that the building alone warrants being a must-see. A beautiful, historical building would be no more "must-see" serving as a zoo exhibit than it would be serving as a zoo entrance or gift shop, and yet if this building was the latter it wouldn't even qualify for the list. Judging this as an exhibit, not a building, means that the building should be used appropriately, and the animal portions contained should be notable in some way. If one made a list of must-see zoo architecture, this building would certainly be a worthy inclusion, but on a list of exhibits it, in my opinion, does not belong as there is nothing notable about it other than a historical, architecturally-impressive building.

As @pachyderm pro stated here history and architecture alone are reason enough to put in on the must see list for the purposes of this thread:

I concur with @lintworm's criteria for makes an exhibit "must-see," especially this part:

The goal remains the same here. I want to provide a look at everything the American zoo landscape has to offer. There are going to be very big exhibits, very small exhibits, historical buildings, some exhibits will be the best of their kind, others not so much, so on and so fourth. The isn't just a list filled with huge mega-complexes that are widely known by most zoo-nerds. It becomes interesting when you also include exhibits that are very small and unknown, but have a unique focus that is done well and isn't seen often.

I assumed, perhaps foolishly, that the majority of people who have been participating were already familiar with how the Europe thread operated. I apologize if I wasn’t clear enough in the beginning, but I’ve always maintained that this exercise is entirely subjective and nobody will completely agree. As I've said, I have no problem with those who disagree with my picks and I will happily engage in friendly debate. As long as you're adding value to the discussion I encourage participation. After all, that's what makes threads like these fun.

Alright, now hopefully we can get this thing back on track.

As the one who created the set of criteria for the initial thread I can only concur.

Zoos do not exist for the benefit of animals, but for the benefit of people. As such zoos are a cultural phenomenon that show human - animal relationships across different cultures. Especially historical, size limited, city zoos also function as a living museum on how human - animal relationships have changed over the past 100-200 years,. That makes such historical exhibits of the utmost importance. Following your reasoning the African panorama at Tierpark Hagenbeck would not qualify for this list, because the lion enclosure in it is quite probably the worst in Western Europe. That would leave a must-see exhibit list without what is probably the single most important extant exhibit in the whole zoo world period.

 

[Batto]

Zoos do not exist for the benefit of animals, but for the benefit of people.

In general, yes. But optimally, there are/ can be benefits for both the individual zoo animals, the species in question as such as well as for wild animals, using the zoo as their habitat and refuge.

 

[lintworm]

In general, yes. But optimally, there are/ can be benefits for both the individual zoo animals, the species in question as such as well as for wild animals, using the zoo as their habitat and refuge.

You are of course correct, but these are arguably all secondary benefits.

Edit: which is not to say they are not important, I think they are very much so, but it is not the primary raison d'etre of zoos in general.

 

[15399]

As @pachyderm pro stated here history and architecture alone are reason enough to put in on the must see list for the purposes of this thread:

History and architecture is certainly a set of criteria that can be considered, and I agree that it should be one of the many lenses exhibits are analyzed from in this thread, but if yourself or @pachyderm pro think that it's okay to include an exhibit solely for its history and architecture, then I respect that opinion, but would also happen to disagree with it. History and architecture is an important aspect of a zoo, however I don't think either history or architecture can make up for the fact an exhibit no longer meets the standards of animal care, and does not continue to maintain a high-quality home for animals. Historical buildings in zoos can, and should, be revamped and reutilized to stand the test of time- and some of the best exhibits in US Zoos are those that reuse historical buildings into modern concepts (e.g. Bronx's Madagascar, Lincoln Park's African Journey). There are also some zoos that have successfully reused a historical building into a non-animal attraction (e.g. Roger Williams Park Zoo's Menagerie building being used as a gift shop), and personally I think this is a great way to continue to feature a zoo's historical and architectural value while also maintaining a high standard for animal welfare.

Zoos do not exist for the benefit of animals, but for the benefit of people.

I'd argue that any good zoo needs to exist both for the benefit of animals, and for the benefit of people. Animal welfare needs to be at the foremost consideration of any zoo, and exhibits need to be designed in a way that provides the best possible home for their residents. Yes, this also means that historical exhibits should cease to be utilized (at least for their initial purposes) if the exhibits no longer meet the current knowledge of best practices in terms of animal welfare.

Especially historical, size limited, city zoos also function as a living museum on how human - animal relationships have changed over the past 100-200 years,. That makes such historical exhibits of the utmost importance. Following your reasoning the African panorama at Tierpark Hagenbeck would not qualify for this list, because the lion enclosure in it is quite probably the worst in Western Europe. That would leave a must-see exhibit list without what is probably the single most important extant exhibit in the whole zoo world period.

Zoos can, and should, showcase this history of human-animal relationships, however in a good zoo it needs to occur in a way that accounts for the modern standards of animal welfare. Animals should not be kept in a sub-standard exhibit purely because it is "historical", and I beg the question with your African panorama example, should Tierpark Hagenbeck continue to house lions in this exhibit as a means of showing its history? I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding no, and that the zoo would be better off either removing this exhibit or reutilizing it for a smaller species that can be kept appropriately in this historical exhibit. Perhaps it'd even make sense in this example to leave the exhibit empty as a means of showcasing where zoo exhibitry was, compared to where it is today. The same is true with this elephant house. The exhibit may be historical (albeit no where near as historically significant as your Hagenbeck example), but that doesn't excuse the zoo from maintaining a modern standard of animal care and animal welfare.

 

[felis silvestris]

History and architecture is certainly a set of criteria that can be considered, and I agree that it should be one of the many lenses exhibits are analyzed from in this thread, but if yourself or @pachyderm pro think that it's okay to include an exhibit solely for its history and architecture, then I respect that opinion, but would also happen to disagree with it. History and architecture is an important aspect of a zoo, however I don't think either history or architecture can make up for the fact an exhibit no longer meets the standards of animal care, and does not continue to maintain a high-quality home for animals. Historical buildings in zoos can, and should, be revamped and reutilized to stand the test of time- and some of the best exhibits in US Zoos are those that reuse historical buildings into modern concepts (e.g. Bronx's Madagascar, Lincoln Park's African Journey). There are also some zoos that have successfully reused a historical building into a non-animal attraction (e.g. Roger Williams Park Zoo's Menagerie building being used as a gift shop), and personally I think this is a great way to continue to feature a zoo's historical and architectural value while also maintaining a high standard for animal welfare.


I'd argue that any good zoo needs to exist both for the benefit of animals, and for the benefit of people. Animal welfare needs to be at the foremost consideration of any zoo, and exhibits need to be designed in a way that provides the best possible home for their residents. Yes, this also means that historical exhibits should cease to be utilized (at least for their initial purposes) if the exhibits no longer meet the current knowledge of best practices in terms of animal welfare.


Zoos can, and should, showcase this history of human-animal relationships, however in a good zoo it needs to occur in a way that accounts for the modern standards of animal welfare. Animals should not be kept in a sub-standard exhibit purely because it is "historical", and I beg the question with your African panorama example, should Tierpark Hagenbeck continue to house lions in this exhibit as a means of showing its history? I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding no, and that the zoo would be better off either removing this exhibit or reutilizing it for a smaller species that can be kept appropriately in this historical exhibit. Perhaps it'd even make sense in this example to leave the exhibit empty as a means of showcasing where zoo exhibitry was, compared to where it is today. The same is true with this elephant house. The exhibit may be historical (albeit no where near as historically significant as your Hagenbeck example), but that doesn't excuse the zoo from maintaining a modern standard of animal care and animal welfare.

I may be wrong, but aren’t we taking a fun little thread a tiny bit too seriously?

 

[lintworm]

I'd argue that any good zoo needs to exist both for the benefit of animals, and for the benefit of people. Animal welfare needs to be at the foremost consideration of any zoo, and exhibits need to be designed in a way that provides the best possible home for their residents. Yes, this also means that historical exhibits should cease to be utilized (at least for their initial purposes) if the exhibits no longer meet the current knowledge of best practices in terms of animal welfare.

Yes, but read again, that is not the point I was making. I don't want to go into a debate here on what a good zoo looks like, but it is clear that animal welfare is key to that. Watch the general zoo discussion forum the coming weeks on some of my thoughts on a modern zoo....

Zoos can, and should, showcase this history of human-animal relationships, however in a good zoo it needs to occur in a way that accounts for the modern standards of animal welfare. Animals should not be kept in a sub-standard exhibit purely because it is "historical", and I beg the question with your African panorama example, should Tierpark Hagenbeck continue to house lions in this exhibit as a means of showing its history? I would argue that the answer to that question is a resounding no, and that the zoo would be better off either removing this exhibit or reutilizing it for a smaller species that can be kept appropriately in this historical exhibit. Perhaps it'd even make sense in this example to leave the exhibit empty as a means of showcasing where zoo exhibitry was, compared to where it is today. The same is true with this elephant house. The exhibit may be historical (albeit no where near as historically significant as your Hagenbeck example), but that doesn't excuse the zoo from maintaining a modern standard of animal care and animal welfare.

Yes, but read again, that was not the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that if animal welfare is always a defining criterion you end up with what I think is an incomplete list. It also opens the question where to draw the line, I expect both Bronx' Jungle World and Omaha's Lied Jungle to feature, but both have some serious welfare issues with amur leopard and tapir. Should they be kept out then? I am glad I don't have to make the choice how to repurpose the lion enclosure in Hagenbeck, because it is clear lions can't be kept there much longer, but it is not easy to find a species that fits the enclosure and equally do justice to the panorama.

 

[Batto]

Edit: which is not to say they are not important, I think they are very much so, but it is not the primary raison d'etre of zoos in general.

Oh, absolutely - I don't have to remind you that you are preaching to the converted, do I? However, I wouldn't have my little zoo if it didn't provide at least some benefit to its animals (even if just a comfortable and safe home). After all, animal welfare is one of the main aspects of my profession.
@felis silvestris Ah, all those glorious past ZC battles, fought with greatest seriousness about the most mundane aspects. Now all lost in time, like manatee tears in the rain... *nostalgic*

 

[15399]

Yes, but read again, that was not the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that if animal welfare is always a defining criterion you end up with what I think is an incomplete list. It also opens the question where to draw the line, I expect both Bronx' Jungle World and Omaha's Lied Jungle to feature, but both have some serious welfare issues with amur leopard and tapir. Should they be kept out then? I am glad I don't have to make the choice how to repurpose the lion enclosure in Hagenbeck, because it is clear lions can't be kept there much longer, but it is not easy to find a species that fits the enclosure and equally do justice to the panorama.

You bring up a good point about where to draw the line. That's certainly a difficult question to answer, and I think everyone would draw that line at a different point if asked. I also think there is a big difference between a large complex with one glaring flaw (e.g. Bronx's leopard exhibit in Jungle World, while inexcusable, is one exhibit in an otherwise incredible complex) and an exhibit that doesn't provide a quality home for any of its inhabitants, such as the Elephant House at Cincinnati. I can see a lot more positive elements than negative elements in both jungle exhibits you mentioned, but unfortunately for the Cincinnati elephant house, I can't say I see many positive elements.

At the end of the day, however, it all comes down to each individual's view on what level of animal welfare should be required, and how important of a criteria it is for determining the list. Personally, I place a lot of weight on animal welfare, and think that the number one thing a good zoo exhibit needs to do is provide a good, quality home for its inhabitants, but others who place less weight on animal welfare may be more inclined to include something such as the Cincinnati Elephant House, as there is no debating its architectural marvel and historical value.

 

[pachyderm pro]

54. Scaly Slimy Spectacular
Zoo Atlanta, GA
Opened: 2015
Size: 14,000 Square Feet (1,300 Square Meters)
Inhabitants: >70 reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Over the last decade major American zoos have consistently innovated when designing reptile houses. When it comes to presentation, the Scaly Slimy Spectacular is one of the most sleek and modern ectotherm campuses in the US, as communicated through the flashy greenhouse exterior. Out of all of the newer reptile houses in the country, this one is perhaps the best showcase of different styles of exhibitry found in herpetariums. The first half of the building is a large atrium that includes rainforest and desert biomes with many spacious displays. The large pond habitats for slender-snouted crocodile and yellow-blotched map turtle are some of the highlights and the desert section in particular includes some surprisingly intricate rock work with open-topped tortoise displays among the rock. The second half of the building takes the appearance of a more traditional reptile house with a long darkened hall of standard vivaria. Every display is extremely well done and a bit more spacious than most, usually only contacting one species per terrarium. Separate from the main building is a smaller house which exclusively focuses on native species including several outdoor displays. With over 65 total enclosures both indoors and out, this is one of the most dynamic reptile houses in the US and offers a little something for every herp enthusiast.

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@geomorph

Similar Exhibits: There are other modern reptile houses in the US which will be covered further down the line, but the one that bears the most similarities to the SSS is Zoo Knoxville’s ARC building. Besides a dedicated crocodilian room, a bulk of the house is laid out in a traditional manner with a very extensive collection to be seen. There is a big emphasis on breeding turtles and tortoises with over 30 species on display across the whole complex, including a large greenhouse for endangered chelonians.

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

 

[Pleistocene891]

54. Scaly Slimy Spectacular
Zoo Atlanta, GA
Opened: 2015
Size: 14,000 Square Feet (1,300 Square Meters)
Inhabitants: >70 reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Over the last decade major American zoos have consistently innovated when designing reptile houses. When it comes to presentation, the Scaly Slimy Spectacular is one of the most sleek and modern ectotherm campuses in the US, as communicated through the flashy greenhouse exterior. Out of all of the newer reptile houses in the country, this one is perhaps the best showcase of different styles of exhibitry found in herpetariums. The first half of the building is a large atrium that includes rainforest and desert biomes with many spacious displays. The large pond habitats for slender-snouted crocodile and yellow-blotched map turtle are some of the highlights and the desert section in particular includes some surprisingly intricate rock work with open-topped tortoise displays among the rock. The second half of the building takes the appearance of a more traditional reptile house with a long darkened hall of standard vivaria. Every display is extremely well done and a bit more spacious than most, usually only contacting one species per terrarium. Separate from the main building is a smaller house which exclusively focuses on native species including several outdoor displays. With over 65 total enclosures both indoors and out, this is one of the most dynamic reptile houses in the US and offers a little something for every herp enthusiast.

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@geomorph

Similar Exhibits: There are other modern reptile houses in the US which will be covered further down the line, but the one that bears the most similarities to the SSS is Zoo Knoxville’s ARC building. Besides a dedicated crocodilian room, a bulk of the house is laid out in a traditional manner with a very extensive collection to be seen. There is a big emphasis on breeding turtles and tortoises with over 30 species on display across the whole complex, including a large greenhouse for endangered chelonians.

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

This exhibit and MOLA are reptile houses that prioritize quality over quantity. Most reptile houses I’ve either seen in person or by photos are endless, small exhibits for reptiles. This exhibit looks innovative and gives their reptiles large exhibits.

 

[CGSwans]

Great reptile house, docked 1,000,000 points for the worst exhibit name in herpetology.

 

[15399]

54. Scaly Slimy Spectacular
Zoo Atlanta, GA
Opened: 2015
Size: 14,000 Square Feet (1,300 Square Meters)
Inhabitants: >70 reptiles, amphibians and fish.

Over the last decade major American zoos have consistently innovated when designing reptile houses. When it comes to presentation, the Scaly Slimy Spectacular is one of the most sleek and modern ectotherm campuses in the US, as communicated through the flashy greenhouse exterior. Out of all of the newer reptile houses in the country, this one is perhaps the best showcase of different styles of exhibitry found in herpetariums. The first half of the building is a large atrium that includes rainforest and desert biomes with many spacious displays. The large pond habitats for slender-snouted crocodile and yellow-blotched map turtle are some of the highlights and the desert section in particular includes some surprisingly intricate rock work with open-topped tortoise displays among the rock. The second half of the building takes the appearance of a more traditional reptile house with a long darkened hall of standard vivaria. Every display is extremely well done and a bit more spacious than most, usually only contacting one species per terrarium. Separate from the main building is a smaller house which exclusively focuses on native species including several outdoor displays. With over 65 total enclosures both indoors and out, this is one of the most dynamic reptile houses in the US and offers a little something for every herp enthusiast.

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@Moebelle

@geomorph

Similar Exhibits: There are other modern reptile houses in the US which will be covered further down the line, but the one that bears the most similarities to the SSS is Zoo Knoxville’s ARC building. Besides a dedicated crocodilian room, a bulk of the house is laid out in a traditional manner with a very extensive collection to be seen. There is a big emphasis on breeding turtles and tortoises with over 30 species on display across the whole complex, including a large greenhouse for endangered chelonians.

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

@Coelacanth18

I'm usually not a big fan of reptile houses and this style of exhibitry, and while I've never been to Zoo Atlanta, this exhibit seems like an exception. There appears to be plenty of viewing opportunities and wide paths, plus the exhibits seems as though they are on the larger side and are naturalistic. I also appreciate the inclusion of outdoor exhibits, and it appears as though the exhibit nicely spaces out its individual habitats, instead of squishing in as many as possible like many older reptile houses. While reptile houses usually don't interest me (despite being a big fan of reptiles), this exhibit is one that I'd love to see in person some day, and is one of the four herpetariums I guessed would be included (one being the Amphibian Center at Detroit, and the other two haven't been mentioned yet).

As for the name, I personally like it. It's nice seeing a catchy, unique name instead of the same few variations of "Reptile and Amphibian Center" that have been used by so many zoos. It also fits the inhabitants well. Amphibians are slimy, reptiles are scaly, and both groups are spectacular!

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Great reptile house, docked 1,000,000 points for the worst exhibit name in herpetology.

At least it’s better than “Eeeww!”, which is the name of the Santa Barbara Zoo’s reptile house.

 

[CGSwans]

Hmm.

I'll give Scaly Slimy 10 points back, for the second worst exhibit name in herpetology.

 

[Aardwolf]

Hmm.

I'll give Scaly Slimy 10 points back, for the second worst exhibit name in herpetology.

Maryland Zoo’s never-built reptile and amphibian complex was going to be W.A.R.T. (WildEarth Amphibian and Reptile Team, WildEarth being the new name the zoo was going to take)

 

[CGSwans]

Maryland Zoo’s never-built reptile and amphibian complex was going to be W.A.R.T. (WildEarth Amphibian and Reptile Team, WildEarth being the new name the zoo was going to take)

I dunno. That one kinda grows on you after a while.