I disagree.
Frankfurt is one of those typical European 19th-century urban zoos: it is completely enclosed by the city and so cannot expand.
Yet it has to survive and needs a certain number of visitors. It can only do that with some recognisable iconic species. The zoo already does not choose elephants, polar bears, buffaloes, etc. With zebras, giraffes, rhinos, hippos and great apes, the list is limited but still sufficient.
Urban zoos should indeed partly focus on smaller species and I understand from their communication that they certainly intend to do so: all 3 domes provide birds, reptiles, ampphibians, etc.
I personally think it is very good for a city zoo to bet on certain ecosystems that need to be shown in large indoor constructions: rainforests, coral reefs, etc.
A city zoo should not aim to hide away its buildings from eye-sight. On the contrary, as far as I am concerned, city zoos should just put their architecture clearly and prominently forward: whether it is the 19th century architecture in Antwerp or Amsterdam, or ultra-modern constructions like in Frankfurt (which lost all its historical buildings in World War II): I only welcome this. Building on the outskirts and large mixed enclosures inwards with winding visitor paths: excellent.
The only real downsizer for me is the loss of the Birdhouse. But birds will be everywhere within the themed domes.
My opinion was not that they should get rid of the mentioned megafauna species, but that they could have created larger enclosures throught other means than tearing everything down.
Rather was my statement that Frankfurt, used to be and pretty much still is further continuing to be for some time now, Frankfurt because they were not like the billion other parks who torn their historic architecture and lay out down to replace everything with the same geographical lay out.
The homogenization and loss of a park that was testament to zoologic history is my issue.
Maybe its just my perception I when I look at the masterplan, knowing the current and old plan fro memory, I see a landslide of losses.
The claim that this is what the public masses want and therefor the zoos would need to obey just bore me, like they are not the professional institutions to exclusively bend over to a public hype. I genuinely believe that they could have told the people what the history of the park was and how many other places still have this lay out, and where the opel zoo is.
To be frank I wont dumb down just because the masses happen to be less involved with the matter cause thats the pretty much the concept they are the masses and then there are the professionals.
Why cant we have a complimentary spectrum. That way I could have went to the giant green house zoo to see the animal emerged in a landscape
Even overlooked the jaguars, when commented yesterday, and the planned space for them looks much bigger than what the already present lions and tigers are granted.
The amazon domes look like randers rainforest coincidentaly coming from the same team danpearl. The park if one could name randers such is interesting, but I have to say I find the same species way less impressive there than at other institutions that not tried to squeeze as many species from the general area in the confined room. Its not just about if the species find a spot that they feel safe and breed but also how well the visitors can see them, because its actualy possible to have both.
That archeticture made the species feel like decorative objects rather than creatures that had a whole universe to themself, an after thought a side line. There are two parks that for most have managed to have lots of species free ranging like zurichs masoala and burgers bush, but neither are effective at showcasing the entire spectrum of their animals and it would be nice if they would also offer large displays that show what smaller species are also free roaming. This is not going to be an actual dome like masoala and bush rather than indoor aviaries for the megafauna that would have coinhabitants or side enclosures that can be very nice. Think my current worry is that these smaller terrariums not just sideline the species reducing the number of smaller species, cause its undeniable fact certain species can be kept properly in the same room as long as they are seperated but would stalk each other if no longer separated.
Dont think anybody is currently thinking and they are going to recognize the peacock more once its free flying in the congo rainforest, rather than readin the sign maybe coming across is and yes every single animal should have the oportunity to hide but the average visitor is probablyj only going to be oh look there walks on and I am robbed of the one institution that allowed me to sit in peace in front of their aviary.
All of this feels like a disneyfication, where the masses just pour through take their pictures loudly remark how great this is and this would be if there was more space, but any way.
The congo rainforest looks like what antwerpen literaly could have done cause the owl raptor aviary is also suited directly next to the okapis and could have given the owl monkeys and guerezas a home in the park outside the monkey house, where they would not have to deal with gorillas in a confined sphere.
The savanna looks like zurichs lewa. Seemingly a hall with two dead ends or do i miss the path around or tunnel under. If so hammering even more home the comment of lots of similar views in a very limited park.
This best of other zoos, and not that one could not learn from others, if something is good then replicate it please, but the bongori forest was already the pongoland leipzig for an inner city zoo, but at least that new build did not eat up that much of the parks spirit.
One thing that rubbed me to wrong way was whenever I said they could do a landscape its an oh no that destroys the character of the park, but when I note how the identity or more over a relict almost get lost in this homogenisation of parks its suddenly this is the only way to go
Might be just my impression but I sometimes felt as if my criticism would be percieved as a potential threat to the support and consequentialy existence of zoos.
Play to your strengths.
All in all would the new concept leave only three categories, and these are rainforest, they can call the sumatran tiger enclosure a swamp but that aint what the species is, so in a certain sense does the belt start with the mountain rainforest of the bears goes over the tiger enclosure over to amazon next to the bongori forest thats also forest and then the congo rainforest then we have the savanna and the third and much smaller aquatic area two seal and one pinguin enclosure, seemingly also a pelican aviary, but that does not look promising.
Sometimes is combining enclosures or more often its just done with species to empty out other enclosures a viable option, both species would still have enough space often one of them more than before, but in other cases do the species neither get the space they would need nor the plattform they deserved.
Architecture wise i think most people would agree that the giraffe house could not just get converted as well as the primate house, but I think the antelope and zebra house that of the camels, as well as both the rhino and bird house could have been saved and integrated.
Once again not that these large domes would not be cool, but could not we have both the domes at larger parks who would be able to offer also more than just these three domes, and then save the archicture of frankfurt. The reason I liked frankfurts so called traditional architecture was because I felt it placed placed in a more scientific zoo who would manage to preserve and convert them when most other parks with such houses just look worn out dirty continuin to keep the false species there, cause they lack the money to renovate and also dont attract those who take the profession so much more serious. Forgot the cassowary house and I did like the raptor aviary, they could have either combined the different parts to enlarge the space or switch the netting with glas to preserve the shape
Find it sad and ironic that the one thing I i used to look forward to at frankfurt got canceled due to sustainibility, and since honestly I am not familiar with what would have been possible, if using the extracted heat from the penguin house could have warmed the many other tropic tanks. Mean there are break throughs in the field and therefor it came across a bit as overcorrection to consort to the public or even the militant anti zoo parties.
Once again might be just be an impression but I feel a lot of potential gets currently dismissed because of the publics tendency to react short minded rather than daring to commit something more professional sustainable meaning a lot more species could be kept whilst also giving them larger better designed enclosures because the entire lay out was planned through rather, but sadly do the goverments not offer the financial aid to enable such long term realisations and the public neither has any idea of zoos truely nor patience to wait a few months or years until the full spectrum of species would come back.
Personaly do I not find the echdinas getting an outdoor experience that much better, I mean it might be for them, size wise maybe uv light grass idk, but for the longest time have they always been no shows for me when they were in the day light part of the grizmek house and onyl came out in the nocturnal area and the same no show during the day happened at every other zoo i visited that kept them that way duisburg rotterdam that weird tiny awfull park in rhineland paletina.
Just a quick overview of how much diversity gets lost
south american plain vicunia rhea and patagonian hare think
some might not miss such structures as the ponds for the cranes and flamingos others do
african wild dog
bird bushes some might say the new aviaries would be the same but they were more calm
bird house the name is short and simple but it was one of the few remaing and larger ones
so one could name all the species that probably will leave entirely not just move within the park
very popular among the younger visitors the goat paddock i mean
alpacas and bactrian camels not particularly aesthetic paddocks but i liked the water barrier
monkey house the spider monkey might just move within the park though they could neither be kept in an area they could reach visitors nor live together with birds and reptiles
the baboons will sadly probably leave for me its just something I was used to and will miss since baboons get increasingly source out whilst every zoo now plans to keep giant otters
no idea if they convert the grizmek nocturnal house into a madagascar focussed area like I think once was mentioned
I will miss the small terraria with the elephant shrews and water skinks especialy since they were suited in much more calm areas than the grizmek house and the exotarium
the gazelles probably move in with the giraffes and zebras and so might the antelopes though they either come from east africa or the subsaharan sahel zone that do very much differ a lot vegetation wise semidesert and savanna but any way
the biggest loss i find is the destruction of the ibex area, found the claim that frankfurt would be too hot for takins but not mardid invalid there was space around they could have enlarged the enclosure and even combined them with a carpine
generaly speaking did I feel as if Frankfurt was defined by covering a spectrum of biomes and places around the world with its many specialized houses and areas
there were alpine species arctic antarctic now all of them are either already or about to get gone and everybody knows these places are even more severely affected by climate change
there were a few terrariums for reptiles and small mammals and aviaries for birds from deserts
Ok this was already a lot so I might just say its one perspective and I do think some parts are undeniably valid such as the loss of diversity in zoos in general and what Frankfurt could have done to be more complimentary but theres no arguing if you happen to like this type of park its going to be hopefully at least as good as it currently seems, once again not the concept itself bothered me but that it came at the cost of what Frankfurt meant to me.
