Favorite Layout

[sweetwilliam]

So I was wondering what your favorite way of laying out a zoo is? Off the top of my head I can think of laying a zoo out by geography, type of species or by biome. My home town zoo, to the extent I have one currently, is the St Louis Zoo, at least that's the zoo I visit most frequently. They organize most of their layout by species type having a specific spot for most of their cats, ungulates, bears, with two groupings of primates (although they do have a sloth in their smaller primate house), reptiles/amphibians, insectarium. But their newest section of the zoo is laid out geographically. With animals grouped together by continent and they also group by biome with those animals tied to the river. I've never heard but I assume they grouped them that way to tie to St Louis and the Mississippi River. They have their pachyderms and other selected animals, although I do wonder at times when they have their cheetahs in their "River's Edge" park section. Oh, and like a lot of zoos they have an assortment of animals in their children's zoo.

I've heard some people say they when they go to a zoo to see the bears they want to see the bears and they don't want to have to trudge all of the way around the zoo to see a bear here and a bear there. (sounds sorta like a song.) It does seem like zoos have an increasing interest in trying to create a more natural atmosphere so the biome or geographical layout plan may be more suiting to a modern design? On the other hand if someone isn't familiar with the animals or is just learning about animals it is nice if they are close together so you can compare their differences.

So I was just wondering what everyone thought, of course, this may be a topic that I'm alone in my interest. (Though on a forum like this one, I doubt that. Feel free to comment if you'd like or, please, tell me if other ways of laying out a zoo come to mind. What's your zoo's layout like?

 

[snowleopard]

I definitely prefer geographical layouts (Asia, Africa, North America) like at the Columbus Zoo or Woodland Park Zoo; or something along the lines of biomes (Oceans, Forests, Savanna) as is done at the Indianapolis Zoo. A perfect example of what I do not like is the section of the Cincinnati Zoo where last summer there were sumatran rhinos from Asia, wallabies from Australia, and then a couple of other continents were included with a few other species. Where is the design in something like that? If habitat conservation is the # 1 factor in the extermination and extinction of species, then preserving and promoting habitats is the way to go. One can find themselves in an Asian rainforest, an African Savanna, etc and ponder sustainable choices and concepts. While some people like it, the old taxonomic method of having all the big cats from across the globe lumped together, all the world's bear species in ancient grottoes one after the other, and hoofstock paddocks in an endless row seems completely outdated to me.

 

[CGSwans]

Geographical by far. If possible, this should extend to bird and even reptile, amphibian and fish species.

I'm not a zealot - I won't complain about a mix of species that might not directly overlap in the wild - but I don't really enjoy seeing Maned wolves, Persian leopards and Ringtailed lemurs from the same spot like I can at Melbourne Zoo!

 

[foz]

Well I prefer zoos without geogrpahical layouts, it keeps me guessing whats around the next corner, while I wish mixed exhibits were more geographically correct I dont mind seeing unusual mixes

 

[Mike11]

I agree with Foz quite alot of Zoos in the Uk do not have a geographical layout at all the major ones that do are Whipsnade,Marwell,London - On its way.
I prefer housing animals in species groups - Its easier if you have all cats together to do any switching of enclosures etc and for feeding instead of going from enclosure to enclosure all around the zoo.
There are some Breath-Taking examples of Geographical design in the Uk for instance the Lions of the Serengeti at Whipsande the enclosure being inbetween two hills so your get an unobstucted view of the Lions ontop of their hill looking onto Oryx.
Quite alot fo Zoos do not have a specific system at all such as Howletts and Port Lympne and Twycross the same animals are everywhere just so happens where the space was for them.

 

[^Chris^]

Something worth mentioning, which I think is another reason that a lot of taxonomic display is being phased out is that it is less beneficial for some species. This old 'scientific' way of displaying, as though in more of a museum style, can put together animals that are unhappy kept in close quarters. The example I'm thinking of is the old style cat houses, and how many of the mid sized cats, particularly cheetahs and clouded leopards, are uncomfortable if kept where they can hear, smell or see lions or tigers close by.

That said, maybe that's true of some geographical displays too. I guess it just depends on the individual zoo planning.

My favourite layout is geographical, though arrangement by habitat is okay too, providing mixed species enclosures are geographically correct. Dunno why I'm such a stickler for accuracy, it's just the way I am.

 

[ZooMania]

I myself prefer not having any layout whatsoever and just having the animals spread over the zoo in no particular order. I find it far more interesting myself and its a shame that most zoos are now going for the whole geographical/biome type layout.

 

[tigertiger]

I don't have so much a favorite in the geographic v. taxonomy argument (though I much prefer the later), I more prefer the physical layout of a zoo. If I need trapsee through a good portion of the zoo twice to see everything (see Columbus, Bronx if you don't know what you're doing, etc), I won't be a happy camper.

As far as the overall argument goes, I think the problem for me is that doing it geographically feels limiting. Columbus in my mind only has four exhibits because they do it so strictly geographically. While that works well for some, that makes me feel like my zoo trip is much shorter (and in the Columbus case in particular..it makes for less than amazing exhibits). It also often feels unnatural to a certain extent because of the boundaries zoos must make to highlight different animals. For example, Jungleworld at Bronx has a jaguar in a glass box right before a separate room that highlights smaller species (mice, reptile, etc.). Yes, this must be done so that you can see the animals but it breaks continuity for me.

I personally feel the best way to do it is not by continent (because, taking somewhere like the US even, different sides of the continent promote entirely different species...) but by habitat type (in the way snowleopard pointed out Indianapolis does).

On a side note, snowleopard...you may be appeased to know Cincy's wildlife cannon is making more sense now: Sumatran, red river hog, takin, przeswalski horses, camel, slender horned, emu.