Hey Zooplantman!

[Miguel]

But there ARE animal enrichment consultants/trainers and the ones I've met are in demand in North America and Asia (at least)

I've learned everything I know about training with a consultant from the US, I've worked with him in one of his shows for 4 seasons, and I know he always has a lot of work all over. He's definitely one of the best and most known animal trainers, but I wonder if this kind of business would strive here in Europe (for a start).

Well... Maybe one day.

 

[zooman]

Always interested in zooplantman, so just joining thread!

 

[Rookeyper]

The short version of how I came to be a zoo professional:
Always liked animals. Saw an article recruiting zoo volunteers so got the whole family involved. also worked in the zoo gift shop. College students went back to school, zoo needed help. Asked for a job. Did what I was told to do and finished it before I went to break. Always REALLY like Australian animals. Read lots of information, asked questions, learned. Next thing I knew I was the keeper for all of the mammals and birds in Australia, my boss did the fish and herps. Kept learning. I've been here for 22 years and still enjoy my job, even with the politics that go with it. As zoos go, though, we have very little of the drama and nastiness.

 

[zooman]

HI zooplantman, l am curious it seems that to build a exhibit in the US is allot more expensive than Europe. Is this correct and why? Different regulations?

I was looking at pictures of Chester zoo exhibits and there app costs. They seem to do it allot cheaper.

 

[reduakari]

It's pretty clear that Chester does not spend much on habitat elements that are common in US zoos, namely artificial rock, mudbanks and trees. Nor is much effort made to hide barriers with berms. planting etc. hile msot of Chester'sexhibits are good for the animal inhabitants, I'd argue that none of them come close to representing realistic recreations of habitats for the benefit oo visitors. Not neccessarily a criticism, but clearly a reason that zoos that do aspire to create realistic immersion experiences inevitably also cost more.

 

[taun]

It's pretty clear that Chester does not spend much on habitat elements that are common in US zoos, namely artificial rock, mudbanks and trees. Nor is much effort made to hide barriers with berms. planting etc. hile msot of Chester'sexhibits are good for the animal inhabitants, I'd argue that none of them come close to representing realistic recreations of habitats for the benefit oo visitors. Not neccessarily a criticism, but clearly a reason that zoos that do aspire to create realistic immersion experiences inevitably also cost more.

Part of that true, Chester looked at putting fake rock walls for the Realm of the Red Ape. This would of added a third of the total cost onto the project. Therefore it was decided not to bother, which am thankful for, I see no point hiding that it is an enclosure.

 

[zooman]

This would of added a third of the total cost onto the project. .

Wow!! l had no idea fake rock was so expensive!

 

[Zooplantman]

I've not worked on European projects, but from what my European counterparts tell me, it is much as @reduakari wrote. The "immersion" design philosophy has never become as popular in Europe as it is in the USA. Here, few zoos would want fences to be visible. Re-creating a sense of natural place is very important and that artifice is very expensive. (When we built the Congo Gorilla Forest at the Bronx Zoo in 1997, towards the end we added yet another huge artificial tree. Cost: $35,000)

In Australia, US designers have done many high-end projects, so I expect there are both expensive exhibits and more modest ones

 

[zooman]

Zooplantman, personally l would be very interested to hear about the process cost and time frame to build a exhibit like this "Asian Small-Clawed Otter Exhibit " It is in the new comments section atm.

I ask as l have designed and built large pond/waterfall areas in my garden in several homes. Always looking great in the end. My point is this one at DAK recieves high praise. Why cant/dont other zoos build the same with ease.

What l would enjoy reading is a your process after being given the brief by DAK. That shows that that night quarters and enclosure barriers viewing window and water filtration are built. Basically you have a hole. I appreciate there might be ALLOT more to it, please houmour me and go with it. As l think it would be fascinating.

 

[Zooplantman]

I didn't work on DAK at all (except some simple consulting I did about a toxic plant issue). I was at the Bronx Zoo at the time.

As to the process, in general:

There is often some concept plan...often from a recent Master Plan...before a design team is chosen.
At the first meeting, the zoo staff and design team - architects, landscape architects, civil engineers, LifeSupportSystem specialists or LSS, civil officials ...if it is a city or county funded or owned zoo.. possible specialists in animal training or landscape (me!) - go over the concept plan and basically revise it. The zoo presents its goals for the exhibit (add a restaurant or increase visitor movement through this area or create a terrific animal experience or all that and more)
The design team goes off and starts work. Over the months there will be a series of meetings. Ideas will come up. They will be altered. Keepers will add requests. Education people will add requests. The Zoo Director will see some other exhibit and come back with a new idea. Eventually someone has to put a price on the whole thing.
Then you start dropping things out to bring it back into budget.
Eventually plans are drawn and usually the job goes out to bid. They may choose the cheapest builders or the best. Bad contractors can really damage a good design. Sometimes the designers are on site quite a bit during construction to tweak the design and make sure it ends up perfect. Sometimes that is not in the contract. At DAK, the Disney team watched it all very closely.

But the heart of your question, I think, is why are some exhibits beautiful and others are not.

I would say:
1. The values of the zoo (sometimes they don't "get" beautiful exhibitry or don't think it is worth the cost. Sometimes they want so many things like additional smaller exhibits, classrooms, gift shops, etc. that there's little space or money to do anything well)
2. The expertise of the design team (Each design firm has its strengths and weaknesses. Not all are equally good. Some are so repetitive that you can tell with a quick look who designed an exhibit.)
3. The experience of the design team and the zoo (sometimes no one really knows what Asian Small Clawed otters do to an exhibit and so they don't know how to design with that in mind)
4. The budget (for example:any exhibit with underwater viewing requires a serious LSS system. That eats up quite a bit of $ and space. There may be little left to make things look great)
5. The site (some sites are better suited to this exhibit while on other sites it will be very hard to make it look natural. )

Asain small clawed otters, for ex., are so damaging to their exhibit that you really need to know what you're doing for it to look terrific. And you need an unusually larger budget for so small an animal. Most big cats are less of a problem on their exhibit. You mostly need to know when they will do damage and how to encourage them to take their naps where people can see them.

I hope this has given you at least some of an answer!

 

[zooman]

Okay so you recive allot of input! That would drive me crazy to be honest.

When a exhibit like this is physically being built. What l am wondering if you and l were going to build this in my backyard! In theory of course...

For example as these guys are so destuctive is there a layer of concrete under the whole enclosure to stop them escaping. Does the edge of the water where it meets dirt is there a liner of concrete. Are logs ect bolted in place.

The more l think of this the more my head hurts

I enjoyed reading your white collar explanattion of the process. Would also enjoy reading the blue collar version. Trust that makes sense.

 

[Zooplantman]

Okay so you recive allot of input! That would drive me crazy to be honest.

When a exhibit like this is physically being built. What l am wondering if you and l were going to build this in my backyard! In theory of course...

For example as these guys are so destuctive is there a layer of concrete under the whole enclosure to stop them escaping. Does the edge of the water where it meets dirt is there a liner of concrete. Are logs ect bolted in place.

The more l think of this the more my head hurts

I enjoyed reading your white collar explanattion of the process. Would also enjoy reading the blue collar version. Trust that makes sense.

At its best, it is a collaboration with one "expert" getting great inspiration off the idea of another which gives someone else an idea, etc. In the right work environment, the collaborative result is far better than what any one would have done by themselves. THAT is why Congo Gorilla Forest turned out as it did.

The blue collar version can range from "shut up and follow the plan" to "yeah, that's a great idea! Yes do it your way!" The firms that do the artificial trees, rocks, etc. are as much a part of the design as anyone. Sometimes, if I can be on site enough, what they create inspires me to alter the landscape and my landscape inspires them to alter the artificial as we realize what each other can do.

The problem people on a job are exactly those who think "I have the right idea and it has to be done my way." The only one who gets to say that is the Zoo Director. The rest of us are creating together for our client.
After all, among other things, we'd like to get paid and we'd like to get more work later

 

[Zooplantman]

Continuing with the story:

The majority of projects, the designers end up with detailed plans for the construction of everything (including planting plans or course). These will specify what existing trees are to remain and how they are to be protected during construction, which are to be removed, exactly where artificial pools, rockwork, etc. are to go. It's generally considered impossible to specify in a 2D drawing what artificial trees and rockwork will look like. Sometimes a sketch/drawing is used. Usually a scale model is used. This is considered as though it were a 3D blueprint. Everything is shown on the plans or in the written "specifications" (which may number over a thousand pages of detail): what drinkers are used, the exact substrate of the outdoor holding pens, the types of fencing, etc. All of this is sent out for construction and rockwork fabrication companies to bid on.

In some projects there is a different approach called "design/build." Here, the main contractor and the design team are chosen together and will work together from the start. The contractors will have input into the design with the goal of getting things done faster and cheaper. Later, small parts will be bid out (like landscaping or plumbing) but often contractors were consulted in advance to make sure there will be no surprises later.

Once contracts are awarded, demolition begins.

Once construction starts, everyone is working from the plans. But as the site takes shape, problems arise and opportunities also pop up. Sometimes it may be discovered that as you remove existing soil to the required depth you hit muck and can't just pour a foundation. A new idea is needed. This is gonna cost the zoo (usually). Sometimes, in spite of all the planning, as the site takes shape it's obvious that those big apartment buildings in the distance are not being screened. The designer has to figure out how to screen them. Here, the contractors, landscapers, rockwork fabricators, designers, etc. may all offer ideas. The goal is to look great but not raise the cost of the project.

My favorite experience was when we were building the Congo Gorilla Forest (Bronx Zoo, d'uh!). The design team was all in-house so we were on site every day. Because it was so big a site, the rockwork people were finished in some areas and moving to start others while we were landscaping their initial areas. A fair amount of my landscape was done "on the fly" responding to the site rather than planned in advance on paper as I now have to do. So the placement of trees, vines, etc. was a response to the artificial mudbanks, etc. that had been built. Sometimes while they were working on a stream, I could ask them to add a small planter here or there to make the final effect more realistic. As the rockwork folks saw what I was doing with what they were doing, they changed their plans for the areas they were starting to take advantage of what I could do with them. They remarked that on most jobs, they finish their artificial stuff before landscaping starts and so never get to see how it turns out. So what we had was a sort of live, designing dialogue of trees and gunnite. This almost never happens on projects though, since the designers are usually not on site every day (it would be too expensive).