Best Individual Exhibit Enclosure
- Thread starter geomorph
- Start date
Looking at my lists, I have some observations:
I notice that my favorite large mammal exhibit is one that apparently can't be seen anymore since the Wgasa Bushline Monorail closed at San Diego Wild Animal Park. The Mountain Habitat was a huge natural rock faced cliff for several species of goats and sheep. Does anyone know if it is still occupied even though it is off-exhibit? It surprises me that I listed an exhibit that was on a ride, as I normally don't like the fact that you can't spend time with the animals. But I remember many trips on the monorail where the driver would stop for several minutes in front of this exhibit and challenge visitors to find as many goats as possible hidden amongst the massive boulders. A true delight.
My two favorite small mammal exhibits have questionable criteria...Free-ranging monkeys in rainforest buildings. Seems like apples and oranges compared to exhibits built solely for one type of animal, like otters. Ditto on these same exhibits for free-ranging birds, although the rainforest buildings more closely resemble large aviaries that make the list.
One facility that made my lists 7 times is the Montreal Biodome. As a zoo, it rates low on my list compared to most regular larger zoos, but as a facility it has many more excellent individual exhibits than many of my favorite zoos!
It's interesting that I find very abstract or stylized exhibits worthy of my favorites list if they are aquatic, while I don't consider them worthy if they are terrestrial. Specifically, there are three that are very abstract. The Commerson's Dolphin exhibit at Sea World San Diego is a large round tank with several viewing windows that is pure architecture, with interior details that replicate someone's conception of what Atlantis was like. There is nothing natural about this tank. The sardine dome at Monterey Bay Aquarium is a tank which encircles the foyer of the exhibit complex. Actually it is an oval, and located in the space between the walls and ceiling, with the school of fish swimming in an endless cycle. There is nothing natural about this tank. And the Moon Jelly Ring at Seattle Aquarium is a circular ring tank, inverted on its side so that visitors can walk through it while the jellies ride the current endlessly and colored lights slowly change. There is nothing natural about this tank. All are abstract. There are few land animal exhibits I can think of that are like this, but one that pops to mind is the tiger exhibit at a Las Vegas hotel which shall go unnamed. It is a grotto-like enclosure which recreates someones conception of an Indian palace, but mostly painted in stark white so that it is more abstract. This exhibit does not make my large mammal exhibit list, but if it was filled with water and Ganges River Dolphins would I be singing its praises?
I notice that my favorite large mammal exhibit is one that apparently can't be seen anymore since the Wgasa Bushline Monorail closed at San Diego Wild Animal Park. The Mountain Habitat was a huge natural rock faced cliff for several species of goats and sheep. Does anyone know if it is still occupied even though it is off-exhibit? It surprises me that I listed an exhibit that was on a ride, as I normally don't like the fact that you can't spend time with the animals. But I remember many trips on the monorail where the driver would stop for several minutes in front of this exhibit and challenge visitors to find as many goats as possible hidden amongst the massive boulders. A true delight.
My two favorite small mammal exhibits have questionable criteria...Free-ranging monkeys in rainforest buildings. Seems like apples and oranges compared to exhibits built solely for one type of animal, like otters. Ditto on these same exhibits for free-ranging birds, although the rainforest buildings more closely resemble large aviaries that make the list.
One facility that made my lists 7 times is the Montreal Biodome. As a zoo, it rates low on my list compared to most regular larger zoos, but as a facility it has many more excellent individual exhibits than many of my favorite zoos!
It's interesting that I find very abstract or stylized exhibits worthy of my favorites list if they are aquatic, while I don't consider them worthy if they are terrestrial. Specifically, there are three that are very abstract. The Commerson's Dolphin exhibit at Sea World San Diego is a large round tank with several viewing windows that is pure architecture, with interior details that replicate someone's conception of what Atlantis was like. There is nothing natural about this tank. The sardine dome at Monterey Bay Aquarium is a tank which encircles the foyer of the exhibit complex. Actually it is an oval, and located in the space between the walls and ceiling, with the school of fish swimming in an endless cycle. There is nothing natural about this tank. And the Moon Jelly Ring at Seattle Aquarium is a circular ring tank, inverted on its side so that visitors can walk through it while the jellies ride the current endlessly and colored lights slowly change. There is nothing natural about this tank. All are abstract. There are few land animal exhibits I can think of that are like this, but one that pops to mind is the tiger exhibit at a Las Vegas hotel which shall go unnamed. It is a grotto-like enclosure which recreates someones conception of an Indian palace, but mostly painted in stark white so that it is more abstract. This exhibit does not make my large mammal exhibit list, but if it was filled with water and Ganges River Dolphins would I be singing its praises?
Zoogoer2000
Well-Known Member
If you look at the rocks while you drive by, you can see the sheep
mweb08
Well-Known Member
Concerning your list here, I don't get SD Panda Research Station or LA Gorilla exhibit.
DC's Panda exhibit is vastly superior to SD's, and I don't even think it's an in the eye of the beholder thing either, DC's is much much larger, has at least as much foliage, better viewing imo, and there's no long line to see them.
The LA Gorilla exhibit is not good imo, no climbing structures, hot wire all over the place, just a bunch of very short grass for the gorillas to walk around on.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I totally agree! But DC's (National's) panda exhibit is a part of a big massive multi-species/multi-enclosure exhibit (Asia Trail), so it doesn't fit this category -- by MY definition.
I saw LA's Gorilla Forest a couple months before it opened and it looked very pretty then. But remember, like Grizzly Gulch above, my list is only of exhibits "under consideration" for a "Top 10" (or 20) list. Just being on the list above is not a guarantee of making the final list.
mstickmanp
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean, but I've actually set foot inside the exhibit and it's much different than what you see.
First of all, the grass is not the normal grass we are used to. The grass is super spongy (eventhough it doesn't look spongy), and it's weird because it stays the same size even in the hot wired places. When I was inside, I kept sinking in because of the grass.
Also, the exhibit is much more hilly than what you see from the visitor side. I even had trouble keeping my balance throughout the exhibit. I'm sure this helps with the exercise.
When the exhibit first opened, it had triple amount of plants inside the exhibit, and most was not protected by hotwire. Within days, the plants and small trees were destroyed. Now all the plants left are mostly the ones protected by hotwire, which is why the hotwire is much more visible.
I do agree that they need more shade and climbing structures, but is not as bad as you think.
I'm having a tough time with the criterion here, although I think I know what you're trying to get at.
For example, I think Baboon Reserve at the Bronx, as a single exhibit, is one of the best exhibits for geladas anywhere. However, it IS part of a larger context of the African Plains, even though the surrounding African exhibits were built at different time.
Pt. Defiances' big tiger enclosure--by itself--is an excellent tiger exhibit, but under the criteria set out here would not qualify for consideration because it's part of the larger Asian Forest Preserve complex.
For example, I think Baboon Reserve at the Bronx, as a single exhibit, is one of the best exhibits for geladas anywhere. However, it IS part of a larger context of the African Plains, even though the surrounding African exhibits were built at different time.
Pt. Defiances' big tiger enclosure--by itself--is an excellent tiger exhibit, but under the criteria set out here would not qualify for consideration because it's part of the larger Asian Forest Preserve complex.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
Ok, sorry, didn't read your entire post, thought you were just judging individual exhibits on there own merit instead of giving them bonus points for being part of a larger exhibit.
I agree with reduakari that this isn't a good way to go about things as it results in some not so great exhibits getting praise, while leaving out superior exhibits simply because of what surrounds them.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's awful by any means, just disappointing for a new exhibit. I also don't think it's that different from Pittsburgh's outdoor gorilla exhibit, which gets ripped on here.
Its not that I hate the Mayan Temple. I just prefer an exhibit that shows an animal in the most natural setting possible, like Jaguar Cove. A Mayan Temple is not the natural habitat of a jaguar.
blackrhino, so true, the cultural and natural worlds are getting meshed together in alot of the new exhibits. I just saw Woodland Park's new penguin exhibit, which comes complete with guano harvesting theming in several places right around the exhibit! Although none of it is actually in the enclosure itself.
In my eyes that's quite different than the Mayan Temple theming. The guano harvesting is telling the story of how the human/animal interaction occurs in Punto San Juan in Peru. It's interpreting a very real conservation issue. The Mayan Temple doesn't do that. It just makes it feel more adventurey. It doesn't really contribute to telling what the animals life is like in the real world.
Yes, the theming that tells a conservation story or a natural story is more on-target for the important message that a zoo should have. Some natural features are impractical to recreate without theming, one that comes to mind is Toronto Zoo's African Savanna. At the Rhino Overlook section, there is a large tree in the middle of the dead-end path that has a fake gazelle carcass draped over a large branch. I saw several people notice it and then learn that it would be there when a leopard dragged a kill up from the savanna. Obviously difficult to recreate without theming, but it was effective for education. I later saw this same theming device at Franklin Park Zoo's Kalahari Kingdom, although I think it was harder to spot. Both were outside the animal exhibits themselves, I have also seen some carcass and bone theming inside some exhibits which seems appropriate to the message.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Personally, what I like is an exhibit that makes me feel like I've left the United States and I've gone to _________ (Africa, the Amazon, etc.). I often use the wonderful national pavilions in Disney World's Epcot Center as an example. When I'm walking around their Italy Pavilion, I feel like I'm actually in Italy, rather than in Florida. So what I'm looking for is an Epcot-like experience in the zoos, only with animals. Exhibits like Memphis' CHINA, Jacksonville's Range of the Jaguar, Kansas City's and Binder Park's African exhibits, and Hogle's Asian Highlands all do this very well.
As for the Mayan temples, sure it's not exactly accurate for the jaguar's actual natural habitat, but if you've never been to the Amazon, you don't know that. The temple certainly gives that "exotic" feel and makes it seem like you're in South America. But it's not natural for the jaguars, you say. Do the jaguars know this? I doubt it.
Zoogoer2000
Well-Known Member
Pls, alot of the help create more vertical space
I'm certainly a fan of these transportive exhibits, and that includes exhibits that immerse the visitor in convincingly natural recreations as well as those that walk the line between nature and civilization. I would certainly like to see Memphis Zoo's CHINA based on your recommendation, ANyhuis!
I have seen some animals enjoying their themed features in some exhibits. The jaguars enjoy perching up on the Lost Temple in Jacksonville's Range of the Jaguar. The vultures like to sit on the zebra carcass at St. Augustine Alligator Farm's Birds of Africa. Of course, one could argue that these features are sometimes their only options in some exhibits, so what else would they do? But the fact remains for me that I enjoy recreations of both the wild and the wild influenced, if done well.
For those of us who like cultural theming, I wonder if we are drawn to a certain innocence in it all. Most of the examples I can think of are ancient civilizations or primitive cultures or romantic notions of colonial exploration. Would we like exhibits such as Palm Beach Zoo's Tropics of the Americas if instead of three Mayan Temples it had three modern Catholic churches? Or instead of a Toltec head statue it had a menacing hulk of strip mining equipment? Or instead of a series of ancient stone columns to support the jaguar exhibit there were a series of stacked concrete drain pipes? All of these alternatives seem more likely to me for these animals to encounter on the edge of the wild than the themed elements that do exist in this exhibit. And yet, I would hate my scenario. It seems that we are drawn to the notion that nature is reclaiming civilization, and my scenario would be too threatening and current to make us comfortable with it. When we see the mature vines strangling the temples and statues, and the jaguar surveying the scene from the top as if to conquer man's folly, we are comforted that nature will prevail, and I believe most of us on here are nature fans at heart.
I have seen some animals enjoying their themed features in some exhibits. The jaguars enjoy perching up on the Lost Temple in Jacksonville's Range of the Jaguar. The vultures like to sit on the zebra carcass at St. Augustine Alligator Farm's Birds of Africa. Of course, one could argue that these features are sometimes their only options in some exhibits, so what else would they do? But the fact remains for me that I enjoy recreations of both the wild and the wild influenced, if done well.
For those of us who like cultural theming, I wonder if we are drawn to a certain innocence in it all. Most of the examples I can think of are ancient civilizations or primitive cultures or romantic notions of colonial exploration. Would we like exhibits such as Palm Beach Zoo's Tropics of the Americas if instead of three Mayan Temples it had three modern Catholic churches? Or instead of a Toltec head statue it had a menacing hulk of strip mining equipment? Or instead of a series of ancient stone columns to support the jaguar exhibit there were a series of stacked concrete drain pipes? All of these alternatives seem more likely to me for these animals to encounter on the edge of the wild than the themed elements that do exist in this exhibit. And yet, I would hate my scenario. It seems that we are drawn to the notion that nature is reclaiming civilization, and my scenario would be too threatening and current to make us comfortable with it. When we see the mature vines strangling the temples and statues, and the jaguar surveying the scene from the top as if to conquer man's folly, we are comforted that nature will prevail, and I believe most of us on here are nature fans at heart.
Having a "Mayan" temple in an "Amazon" exhibit would be like like putting an adobe hut in an Arctic exhibit. You of all people are acutely aware of the difference between Central America and South America after your lengthy "conversation" with Sun W!
As far as the romantic "nature has taken over" imagery of vine-covered ruins, that can sort of work, but a couple of zoos have tried to create "abandoned lumber mills" that have been "re-colonized" by animals, which fail miserably IMO.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
But that's exactly the problem. It's bad, inaccurate education. I know we disagree about the methods of zoo education, but surely they have no place mis-representing geography or ecology for the sake of theater!