Georgia Aquarium Georgia Aquarium Expansion

O

okapikpr

Well-Known Member
Here are links to information regarding the world's largest aquarium's expansion.

http://www.georgiaaquarium.org/expansion/

Aquarium flips for a new exhibit — dolphins | ajc.com

This new expansion will hold dolphins and cost about $110 million dollars, add 1.5 million gallons to the aquarium's total, and cover an additional of 2 acres to the aquarium. The aquarium also plans to build a rescue center for marine mammals by the old marineland of Florida place near St Augustine and open it in 2009.
 
The Georgia Aquarium continues to amaze me, and if all goes well then I will visit it in the first week of August this summer. The fact that the entire establishment didn't even exist three years ago is baffling, as it is basically taken for granted as one of if not the best aquarium on the planet. The fact that after all of its success there is now confirmation of a $110 million expansion, with as many as 12 dolphins, illustrates just how popular it has become. My only hope is that it doesn't ever become a theme park like any of the Seaworlds.

As far as ticket price goes, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a copycat formula of the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. At that aquarium there are a number of different admission amounts, based on what exhibits and shows a visitor wishes to see.
 
Snowleopard be sure to either arrive early in the morning or buy tickets online. The aquarium only allows a certain number of people to enter the aquarium in a given hour to control the number of people in the aquarium. When I visited (April 2006) that number was like 4,000? Now I think they only allow 3000-3500 people at a time...its still a pretty tight squeeze.

If you wait to buy tickets there...often it is a long wait and they also run out of tickets (it all depends on how many have been sold on the website and how many members (who get in free) have enter the building).
 
@okapikpr: thanks for the info!! I have always known about the unprecendented success of the world's biggest and best aquarium, and I was planning on getting there as soon as they opened on the day of my arrival. But perhaps now my wife and I will stop at an internet cafe and purchase tickets while we are on our road trip.
 
The Georgia Aquarium's director is leaving for a larger director post at the Columbus Zoo. Anybody sending in their resume?
 
Bottlenose Dolphins? Oh please, no... I don't know whether the people in charge at the Aquarium are unaware of this, but there are more cetacean species in this world than just the more than common Tursiops truncatus...

With all the money and connections they have, they could instead do something useful-like supporting the in-situ protection of Freshwater dolphins in the Ganges/Indus or the Vaquita project, instead of building another Molest-"Flipper"-Playground for spoiled kids (interspecific disease transfer and stressing animals, hooray!). Or they could buy up at least some of the cetaceans (like Commerson's Dolphin or Finless Porpoise) kept in bad Asian institutions...That would also be acknowledged by some of the dolphin activists (not the hardcore fraction, though) and would make visiting Georgia Aquarium even more interesting for zoo-fans and animal enthusiasts.

Bottlenose-Dolphins???-how uninspired and pointless...
 
Last edited:
Bottlenose Dolphins are one of the native cetacean species to Georgia. And the aquarium can tie this exhibit with the in-situ conservation/research that they will be funding in Marineland, Florida. And while exotic cetaceans are cool...they already have a pretty inticing facility with a 6+ million gallon fish bowl and 4 whale sharks. To me that is really the only exciting part about the aquarium...but worth the entire trip!!! The rest of the galleries are "uninspiring and pointless".

In my opinion this aquarium doesnt need any more cetaceans (they have belugas) but reptiles (In 2006 they had one sea turtle...now a few more alligators and some turtles), amphibians (they have none), birds (they only have black-footed penguins), pinnipeds (California Sea Lion, why when Steller's are much more impressive).

However, with the dolphin expansion they are not only adding a new exhibit and research program...but providing a helping hand to the original - Marineland. Marineland tore down everything and is starting over. Right now they have just a meet and greet facility (or molestation center for Sun Wukong). But they also have plans to build a visitor's center, a new oceanarium, and a research/rehabilitation facility. Georgia Aquarium will financially support the research/rehab facility and provide the initial construction cost for the center. While this money could have been sent to some foreign marine mammal facility, there is no nearby marine mammal rehab center for the Northeast Florida/Georgia coastline. This will be a well used facility for Atlantic cetaceans.
 
@okapikpr: So beluga whales, whale sharks or African Penguins are native species of Georgia?

In-situ conservation in terms of Common (in this case: sic!) Bottlenose Dolphins? Research by Marineland? Yeah, sure...There exist already quite a bunch of marine mammals rehab centers, maybe just not next to Atlanta, but nevertheless all over North American Atlantic coastline; why not better invest in them? And why should zoos, according to Your logic, actually invest in protection programmes in the African Rainforest, North African Desert or Philippine Islands? After all, they could just invest their money locally. Might be due to the common correspondence of Biological Hot Spots and highly endangered species and poor Third World countries as locations...
If they want to redo and improve Marineland just for said positive purposes-yeah sure, why not? But that certainly doesn't cost $110 millions...

And to be honest: Your wishs and thoughts about what species they should get-that's another story and Your pigeon... Californian Sea Lions are easier to acquire and in the long run to keep (being smaller and less aggressive than Steller's)-that's why they're the favourite choice in terms of pinnipeds for zoos & aquarium worldwide.

What bother's me is the $110 millions spent on such a trivial and indeed (monkey me if that makes You feel better...) pointless investment. But hey, no problem: just spend that huge amount on a money-and energy-wasting facility, so that in a few years animal and wildlife fans worldwide can mourn about the loss of another cetacean species-and the people in charge at Georgia Aquarium can simulate consternation, yet keep on making money...

About the "molestion" part: if dolphins in the wild approach people on their own for interspecific contact and have the possibility to back up, then it's (mostly) OK. In most facilities keeping dolphins, however, the dolphins have less opportunities to swim away, no matter how large the enclosures and how careful the keepers are. Chronic stress might be one result, which isn't always that easy to spot. This is especially true for institutions with a high visitor count, where hundreds of paying customs want to touch the dolphins again and again and again every day. Alas, mentioned danger of interspecific diesease transmission and the creation of the wrong impression in many visitors' minds that dolphins are not wild animals and intelligent predators, but funny pets, should not be trivialised.
 
@sun wukong: I dont know what books you read, but belugas, penguins, and whale sharks arent native to georgia, I certainly didnt mention they were. The aquarium focus on bottlenose dolphins (apart from being easier to acquire and maintain, like you mentioned of the california sea lions, which is why bottlenose dolphins are more common in zoos and aquariums) is just another exhibit. Besides most zoos just come up with excuses anyway to defend the morals of keeping an animal in captivity. Im sure you understand that the same animals can just as well be conserved and researched in the wild, right? Which is why the mostly marine aquarium was built far from the ocean.

And why should zoos, according to Your logic, actually invest in protection programmes in the African Rainforest, North African Desert or Philippine Islands? After all, they could just invest their money locally.
Click to expand...

You are very right Sun Wukong, every zoo and aquarium needs to focus on its native species, whether they are endangered or not...animals dont need to be on the brink of extinction to be conserved. How can an institution go to other communities and countries and tell them how to conserve their species, when that institution doesnt support its own species at home?

There exist already quite a bunch of marine mammals rehab centers, maybe just not next to Atlanta, but nevertheless all over North American Atlantic coastline; why not better invest in them?
Click to expand...

And there are not marine mammal rehabs center all over the US Atlantic coastline. There is a huge gap between North Carolina and Central Florida that currently lacks such a facility...Marineland was a rehab center in this region and the Georgia Aquarium is investing in them.

And if $110 million dollars to build an 1.5 acre annex to the already $700 million downtown urban "world's largest aquarium" is a pointless investment, then the aquarium to begin with is also a pointless investment. At least this aquarium is making money...most large US aquariums build their aquariums in so much debt that it later becomes a pointless investment.

I understand if you dont like the aquarium, I dont want to make anyone like something they dont like. Apart from the big Ocean Voyager tank, I dont think much of the aquarium myself. But this aquarium is huge and attracts alot of attention...so an expasion of the likes they are undertaking - adding millions of additional gallons to the aquarium, providing more room for dolphins than most US institutions is pretty noteworthy.
 
@okapikpr: You seemed to have somehow missed the irony of my last post...;)

1. Your first argument was that Bottlenose Dolphins are native species to Georgia-a rather strange and not really convincing criterion. Therefore I mentioned some of the more prominent exotic inhabitants of the Aquarium-which are, no matter what literature You consume, not native to Georgia, but are nevertheless kept at the aquarium. So much about Your argumentation regarding the choice of Bottlenose Dolphins as a "local" species...
2. Bottlenose Dolphins are actually not easier to keep than say, Commerson's, Pacific White-Striped or Irrawadi Dolphins; it's just a bit harder to get them. But if You can invest $110 million, this shouldn't be a problem-should it?
3. Certain data, f.e. in terms of veterinary treatment, can be better collected in captivity. However, this is no real "excuse" for keeping an absolutely common species in large numbers while other, highly endangered species might benefit from ex-situ breeding programmes (or at least from ex-situ data collection to improve local in-situ protection and create public awareness).
4. About the first quotation: You might not have noticed the imbedded irony. Western zoos aren't usually very involved in local environmental protection (yet this shortcoming is not true for all-see Tallinn Zoo and the European mink project)-but that's often due to the scenario of the Hot Spots mentioned above and the already existing (functional?) governmental environmental services in many Western countries. It's nevertheless no excuse not to invest in the protection of foreign endangered species and ecosystems.

Finally, You seem to fail to grasp the actual idea behind my posts. No, I do not generally dislike the Georgia Aquarium-even though I do consider it a waste of energy and money in a time where both is scarce, especially in terms of environmental and species protection and the protection of biodiversity itself.
What I dislike is the thought that $110 million that could be really well spent on several projects, may it be dearly needed "gaps" just in the USA or equally needed investment in in-situ projects of highly endangered cetacea species far, far away in a distant land, is used to build just another facility with the single purpose to keep and amuse visitors with a very common species, only to make enough money in the end. Read Your very own remark "At least this aquarium is making money" again-as if profit is a suitable excuse for pointless (SIC!-just for You, as You seemed to have grown fond of the term...;) ) and thoughtless hanky-panky...
And excusing this by misemploying the threadbare "rehab and research" argument for cover-up, is another aspect that turns me sour. "[A]dding millions of additional gallons to the aquarium, providing more room for dolphins than most US institutions is pretty noteworthy."-yet why should they get said Bottlenose Dolphins in the first place-just to make more money? I'm not that blue-eyed not to see the economic character of the whole plan-but I'm displeased by the obvious deception of the public to generate more cash under the pretext of a good cause...
 
Sun Wukong...you seemed to have missed my sarcasism. The only thing the aquarium has going for it is the large ocean tank with Whale Sharks, Hammerheads, and large groups of rays and fish. The rest of the collection is rather common in US Aquariums...

Beluga Whales
California Sea Lions
Black-footed Penguins
Asian Small-clawed Otter
American Alligators
and various fish you could find in a fish store.

I understand the need to prioritize resources for those critically endangered species. But White Rhinos, African Elephants, Okapi, Beluga, California Sea Lion, and Bottlenose Dolphin are not critically endangered yet there are plenty of conservation programs and space in zoos for these species.

Also, it is very common (and important) for US zoos/aquariums to display local species and support local conservation efforts. I cant think of one US zoo/aquarium, with the obvious exception of those specifically themed (ie Busch, DAK, Santa Ana Zoo), that doesnt have exhibits and programs that support local species. Even my institution, though with its focus on African species, does its part with local species. It is a very convincing arguement for the aquarium, in the US, to make the bottlenose dolphin an addition to its collection because it is a native species - especially with the connection of a program for the species. The rehab center in marineland will not just benefit dolphins, but whales, manatees, sea turles, etc.

Also the bottlenose has an existing captive population... aquariums get enough grief from activists in the US, they dont need more from them by acquiring foreign species. It is better to acquire already existant marine mammal species that import more (commerson's and white-sided dolphins would require additional imports to continue these populations). It is also very important to study populations in large numbers to get the best compliation of data...any researcher would agree that a report has more complete results with more data.

I did notice the first quote was imbedded in irony...that is why I quoted it, you might not have noticed the sarcasm. If the whole idea for a zoo/aquarium is to educate the public on the need to conserve species/environments. These institutions need to show them what is being done in their own backyard (The Appalachia region that Atlanta borders can be compared to a third world country and is home to a very diverse ecoregion - where else can you find more salamanders?). It is important to invest in foreign programs...it is equally important to invest in your own local programs.

And I really do grasp your dislike for why facilites choose to send millions on construction costs and not on conservation programs - it is very frustrating. Such an expense for dolphins would be cheaper outside of downtown Atlanta on a larger property that is not stricken in drought and doesnt need to have an attractive appearance that complements that building that it is attached to. But Bernie Marcus wanted to do something for downtown Atlanta and conservation...now that is irony, it is not? Im sure you would agree with me that every zoo should donate more $$$ to programs than fund their institution. Which is why it is a HUGE deal that the georgia aquarium makes a profit...its a business, it should. And this buisiness makes its business education/research/conservation AND recreation, as is the case for all zoos/aquariums.

To me, the profits for the non-profit institution, at least makes up for the waste in construction costs. I've heard of too many places that invest in large aquariums/zoos that are nothing but debt ridden places that turn into amusement parks and not the zoological institutions they were intended or become so poor that they cannot support conservation programs that were built to inspire funding for.

I'm not that blue-eyed not to see the economic character of the whole plan-but I'm displeased by the obvious deception of the public to generate more cash under the pretext of a good cause...
Click to expand...

Good I'm glad you understand, because this is what most major zoos and aquariums do. Also note that the people in control what happens in today's zoos/aquariums are from a different generation, then most of us on this site. Unfortunately, they have egos that dont always give for ideas from younger generations (or ones younger at heart)...like many idealists, especially those in zoobeat. It will take another generation for our ideals to come through...we just need to be patient and hope that by then our egos will allow for new ideas that ARE realistic and look at long-term projections, not quick fixes to the situtations that effect the species and environments of this world.
 
Last edited:
@okapikpr: If there had been saracasm in Your post, then only in a very faint, hardly noticible dosis...;9

1. What is the purpose of the constant remark about the commonplace character of the Georgia collection-to illustrate that the Georgia Aquarium has no interest in acquiring non-standard species? See said example of the whale sharks...
2. So the Common Bottlenose Dolphin is the right representative for the local habitat protection programmes in Georgia? Yeah right; and New York City or Chicago are going to spend millions of dollars on SSPs for Norwegian rats, House sparrows and feral pigeons,as they are equally rare representatives of said habitats...
I already stated my pov regarding western zoos and local wildlife projects (amazingly, even outside the USA...); what I fail to understand (no matter how often You repeat it) is what makes You believe that Bottlenose Dolphins are apt candidates; the true reason for the requirement is certainly no conservation issue. Better invest the $110 million in the local salamander projects then...
3. Commerson's and White-Sided dolphins already exist in captivity in the USA. The buying of specimen from Asian institutions (like Japanese aquariums) would both benefit the already existing US population of these species and improve the living conditions of these individuals (which the dolphin fans would surely appretiate). And Georgia would have another outs-standing attraction - to make more money...
4. What more (useful!) data should they exactly gain there? There exist already various institutions in the world keeping Bottlenose dolphins for decades-wheras in terms of other species of cetaceas, the knowledge is still limited and needed. And the latter species, due to being endangered, could actually benefit from more scientific focus and more public interest in their cause-unlike bottlenose dolphins, that are both well-known and well-researched.
5. So the quotation of irony is saracasm? lol
6. I very, very much doubt that the Georgia Aquarium contributes a lot in terms of "education/research/conservation". "Conservation" is the new magical PC word that is used to camouflage the real motives (i.e. making money). Maybe someone should expose Bernie Marcus & co's real motivation...
We all know that zoos and aquariums need money to keep on going; but in the face of the ongoing rapid endangerment of habitats and species (may they be local or not), the ratio of money spent in zoos/aquariums on fancy needless attractions and on realistic and working conservation programmes is still extremely patchy. We can't wait for the current people in charge to change and be able read the signs of the times-this attitude has to change fundamentally, not just to the form of short-lived patchwork like the Georgia Aquarium claims to do. And I'm not saying this as an idealist, but as an active ZGAP member who knows how only a small amount of well-spent money can really make a difference in terms of species conservation.

You failed to be responsive to my last and most crucial part: "but I'm displeased by the obvious deception of the public to generate more cash under the pretext of a good cause". Making money is one thing-but taking the public for a fool in the name of a good cause just to gain more profit is certainly not acceptable for a serious institution, may it be an aquarium or a zoo. This has to change.
 
Last edited:
@Sun Wukong: you sure do take things out of context, try reading slower to grasp what my posts contain. If you want to debate, please make you case for your opinions on my statements, rather than dismiss them altogether or twist my words around to make your arguement.

You try to make a convincing agruement against the local species conservation, but all your reasons make very little sense? An SSP for feral species!?..what next preserving goats in the Galapagos or rabbits in Australia? Why are foreign conservation projects more important than local issues?

If you have a problem with the bottlenose dolphins that are so un-original, then why are the California Sea Lions that you seem to have no problem with OK? And the Black-footed Penguins, American Alligators, or Asian Small-clawed Otters? And I'm sure the aquarium spent millions on these animals too. I have already agreed to your disapproving of this wasted money, and I added that the aquariums ability to raise money deemed this facility to be a lot less wasteful than the many that failed who wasted even more.

I have already, over and over again, provided valuable reasons why the aquarium would choose bottlenose dolphins - I added some new ones too:
1. native to georgia
2. connection to local conservation efforts
3. flagship species (I'm not saying they are keystone or indicator species, dont twist my words on this issue)
4. Other dolphin populations in US captivity are not viable and difficult to acquire without having a PR nightmare, which the aquarium already gets plenty of.
5. they are attention grabbers (as much as polar bears and elephants) - the public loves bottlenose dolphins which is why every zoo has them
6. easy to acquire
7. research - we still dont know everything about bottlenose dolphins (we havent even mastered our own species) see #4 why not different species

**As for #6, have you been to the georgia aquarium? There is only one gallery (that has but one tank) where the georgia aquarium acquired "non-standard" species. I'm not stating that the aquarium has no interest in these type of species, but the rest of the aquarium is pretty standard. I too am disappointed in the lack of uniqueness to the aquarium, and in an earlier posting gave examples of what unique species the aquarium should add in place of the standard species...a statement you gladly twisted to try and argue against my other statement on the local species reason for the dolphins.

As for your last statements, look closer at the whole zoo/aquarium "industry" in essence they are all fooling the public in the name of conservation, research, and education (and this is not a new tactic but one that has occured since CITES) just so they can have animals displayed in captivity...if they were really serious all zoos/aquariums' animal displays would be closed to the public. Then this website would not exist and none of us would be zoo fans, right? You seem like the type of guy who "sticks it to the man"...good for you. But many of these head hanchos really do have egos and often are career oriented minds with limited viewpoints that have been chisled by many years "political correctness" that zoo PR depts have become. There is really nothing we can do vocally without bringing down the whole zoo field and become members of PETA (unless we take out PETA first and make our own organization to revamp the zoo field :). You are an idealist with realistic options, a type of character that is rare amongst the management of the zoo world, because many of them were and just had it beat out of them by their previous superiors...we need more durrells in this world. I hope you dont find more arguement in this last case of this debate that we both seem to agree upon.

Also these debates nice to have from time to time, but it takes away from the environment of Zoobeat...Sim, or any of the moderators, would it be possible to create a seperate debate forum so our arguements could be seperate from the news and information that many these forums are about?
 
@okapikpr: In the case You want to shorten up things, You don't have to ask the moderators for help; You can also send me a PM.

Let me answer to Your last post:
No, I'm not misinterpreting or twisting anything You wrote 8or at least not trying to)-yet it seems that You sometimes fail to understand what I posted. Did I dismiss local conservation efforts? No, not at all (see Tallinn reference). My example with the rats, pigeons etc. should underline that I consider the use of very common and not-at-all endangered species, like Bottlenose-Dolphins, but also Californian Sea Lions, African Penguins, American Alligators--- also meerkats, Bennett's wallabies, flamingos etc. in zoos/aquariums as "flagship" species or just crowd pleasers a rather dubious idea (ergo not "OK"), especially if such a huge sum is invested in huge energy-wasting animal buildings (designed mainly for the visitors) without investing only a fraction of said amount in real conservation work. That's why I also doubt that the money gained by the Georgia Aquarium is really a positive criterion, as it certainly doesn't find its way to such a program (no matter what the company tells...)
About 1-7.-sorry to say that, but that's the usual hogwash employed to justify the husbandry of all those crowd pleasers. Part of it is true, but is no excuse for the dull standardisation I railed against many times in this forum. About the PR: taka another look at what I wrote about the Asian institutions-"rescuing" Asian dolphins would certainly create better PR.
If You want local species representing Georgia, You could also keep green tree frogs, Brown Thrushers or largemouth bass. And btw: most zoos I visited so far don't keep dolphins, no matter how much the public "loves" them, as their husbandry is extremely expensive-and the PR connected with them is almost always negative.
"we still dont know everything about bottlenose dolphins (we havent even mastered our own species"-??? There has been enough data collected about bottlenose dolphins-it's time to put it into use for endangered species.
The current "standard" status won't guarantee that the Georgia Aquarium doesn't have the means and interest to acquire more "extraoridinary" species in the future-as with $110 million, You could actually get almost any species You want. Even the obnoxious red tape isn't much of a problem then. I have seen what the sheiks (like at Al Whabra) keep-with the magic formula "Money's no object" employed, they get what they want-may it be beira antelopes, Arabian thars or various BoP species. And that often legally...

About Your last passage: fortunately, You are not correct; there are various zoos in this world, with Jersey as the prime example, but also Chester, Landau, Tallinn, Münster, Bronx, Phoenix etc. for who conservation is not just window-dressing to mislead the public. Public zoos can serve a purpose in terms of conservation work, in many ways equally to non-public conservation centers. In fact, a combination of public and non-public institutions (like New Orleans Zoo and Acres) seems to be the best idea. Times are changing and have to change-also in the zoo management. That's not just idealism, but also pragmatism; it's unlikely that the "conservation" fraud can be kept up much longer with no one noticing (even if, as we all experienced, many zoo visitors aren't the brightest lights around...)-and while many species pass away on the way.

Finally: The last thing I would do is become a member of PETA.

Let's agree on $110 million being way too much money spent on such a project-and while You see a positive thing in it, like rehab centers & bottlenose dolphins as "flagship species" for Georgia, I can only see a shameful scam and waste of money. Otherwise-send me a PM.
 
Last edited:
I'm not asking for the moderators help - I dont mind the debates at all. The creation of a debate forum was just a thought I had at the moment. Debates often stray from the original thread (this debate didnt do so much of that) and become long-winded. This one has been pretty civil and informative.

The Georgia Aquarium got much public (and more activists) grief last year when the two original whale sharks died at the aquarium and then purchased/rescued two more whale sharks (this was already planned before the previous died) from Taiwan's fishing industry that is only allowed to catch so many whale sharks a year...luckly a number that the government is slowly decreasing to phase out whale shark fishing. Of course fish really arent as important to activist that the mammals. I'm surprised myself that none of them have really acted on the aquarium's announcement...maybe their waiting for when its opens or they are too preoccupied with the Dallas Zoo elephant death. Then in the case for their beluga deaths...the two males were acquired from a small mexican aquarium/theme park and it was only after one of them died, did the anti-whales in captivity people can out...they sure can be a pain in the...

And it is very true that when zoos keep native species they should have more than the stars of the ecosystem. The Georgia Aquarium has a rather smaller and children oriented "Georgia Explorer" gallery aimed at the native marine life in the state where there are touch tanks, a right whale slide (oh boy!), and a shrimping boat. In the Freshwater gallery there is a long/narrow circulating tank (to resemble a stream) with native fishes that travels above the visitor pathway; and they replaced the amazon river tank with an alligator swamp last year. But nothing to the extent that the Tennesse Aquarium or the North Carolina Zoo has built for native aquatic life.
 
@okapikpr: where would you rank the Georgia Aquarium in comparison to the other notable aquariums in North America? There is of course Monterey Bay, John G. Shedd and the National Aquarium in Baltimore that are all ranked quite highly. I'm not sure if the various Seaworlds should be included in such a list, but they also have their good points as well.
 
Rank in order:

1. The Shedd - has a huge diversity of animals and many high quality exhibits.
2. Tennessee Aquarium - a diversity that rivals the Shedd but lacks the space
3. Steinhart Aquarium (the new one that will open soon)
4. Monterey Bay Aquarium
5. Georgia Aquarium
6. National Aquarium
7. Dallas World Aquarium
8. Vancouver Aquarium

While I have only visited two of the above (Tennessee, Georgia)...I base my opinions on various books that I have read, other colleague's opinions, animal collections, and the various maps and designs from my collection.

Runners up:
Aquarium of the Americas (Audubon) - will visit this summer
Quebec Aquarium
Newport Aquarium - have visited
Oregon Coast Aquarium
Adventure Aquarium (Camden, NJ)

I have also seen many news articles about new possible aquariums in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama that could very well compete with the Shedd and Georgia Aquariums. Also the Sea Worlds, Marinelands, and New York Aquarium could be consider more of a marine park with a campus rather than the usual aquarium buildings that comprise the lists above. Anyone else have a ranking?
 
The New England Aquarium (Boston) doesn't even get a mention?!?

Anyway.
Although I have not seen it, many zoo/aquarium designers and zoo directors have told me they felt Georgia Aquarium was a "must see." They felt it was "odd" (I'm not certain why they said that) but worth a trip.

Aquarium of the Americas did not thrill me.
On the other hand, there are aspects of the Florida Aquarium (Tampa) I really liked.

The hard part is that almost every place has something that is very worthwhile, even though the totality of the facility may not impress.
 
Very true zooplantman, you need to have something unique to order to draw a crowd and compete with nearby major aquariums.

Sorry about not mentioning the New England Aquarium, I feel that they are rather old and lack the type of exhibits that can be found in the aquariums I mentioned - though I havent been to the aquarium and my literature of the place is rather poor :( Their last masterplan that was in place looked really cool before they fell on financial trouble and had to abandon the plans. With those plans I would have ranked them above Monterey Bay Aquarium!

I have been to the Florida Aquarium too, however that last gallery "Sea Hunt" (which is slated for an overhaul) didnt quite do it for me...but I should have place it in the runner-up list.
 
New England Aquiriam

This place kept me happily occupied for several hours , and at the time that I visited it , it was on par with Seattles aquiriam , second equal to the Monterrey aquiriam .( Not that I have been to that many of the US or worlds aquiriams )

Has anyone been there in the last few years ? I hope it hasnt deteriorated out of the top group of aquiriams in USA .

I am not sure if I agree with the economics of Georgia aquiriam expansion , considering the HUGE amount of money involved .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top