USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
What is a better zoo visit Minnesota Zoo or Como Park Zoo? I am thinking about visiting this fall but may not, I would prefer to visit Minnesota Zoo but Como park seems better what is the better option?
Is Minnesota Zoo or Como Park Zoo a better zoo visit in Minnesota?
- Thread starter USZOOfan42
- Start date
Without a doubt Minnesota is a far more impressive facility and has some of the best enclosures you'll ever find in a traditional zoo setting. By comparison, Como Park is easily the most generic zoo I've visited. Perfectly good for the most part but almost nothing unique in regards to collection or exhibitry. Because it is free and heavily ABC focused it receives much higher visitation, but Minnesota is much more worthy of your time if you can only visit one.
Minnesota. Minnesota. Minnesota. Como Park is honestly kind of boring.
Persephone
Well-Known Member
Have you already seen lions, giraffes, etc? If not, Como. If so, Minnesota. It’s one of my favorites.
Minnesota Zoo is in many a zoochatter's top ten list. Como pretty much exclusively comes up in the context of people advising visiting Minnesota instead. The only other times I've seen it mentioned are in regard to a couple primates. I don't think anyone on zoochat likes Como.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Another one I have, what would be better Milwaukee or Minnesota?
Zoochat standards favor Minnesota by miles. I do think Milwaukee is somewhat underrated (very flawed though) but Minnesota is again, considered by many to be a top ten zoo.
Minnesota's exhibit quality is leaps and bounds ahead of Milwaukee. When it comes to large carnivores and Northern hoofstock especially there are few American zoos that can compete. Milwaukee is still worth seeing for its history and large megafauna collection, but is one of the more dated major zoos in the country. It's heading in a positive direction however with several developments currently being undertaken.
Another thing to consider when choosing between Minnesota and Milwaukee is that Milwaukee has its rhino construction project in the middle of the zoo so a visit would be better timed for sometime after 2024 to allow for its completion. A late fall visit to Milwaukee might also mean that much of the African hoofstock is off exhibit. Minnesota doesn't have any major construction happening right now and all exhibits should be open in fall.
Really though both zoos are worth visiting at some point, as they exemplify different zoo design philosophies. Milwaukee was basically the last of the Bronx/Detroit/Brookfield type zoo built in the US -- "complete" zoos featuring a set of traditional animal houses plus decent-sized outdoor exhibits featuring liberal use of rockwork. It still retains much of its original layout, particularly the predator/prey setups. Its flaws stem in part from that layout, but it's an interesting time capsule. Minnesota shares a style with Toronto and North Carolina of indoor pavilions and massive outdoor exhibits plus large tracts of undeveloped land containing decent wildlife habitat. Like those zoos, it's scale was ultimately too big to build out fully. Minnesota has generally updated its exhibitry with the times more successfully than Milwaukee. Collection-wise, Milwaukee would be better for ABC mammals and herps, Minnesota is better for less common mammals and fish.
If you do decide to visit Minnesota, it's also worth noting that Como can easily be tacked on if you have even a minimal amount of spare time. It's free and very compact, so possible to do a walkthrough in 30 minutes assuming no long stops to watch behaviors or look for hiding birds.
Really though both zoos are worth visiting at some point, as they exemplify different zoo design philosophies. Milwaukee was basically the last of the Bronx/Detroit/Brookfield type zoo built in the US -- "complete" zoos featuring a set of traditional animal houses plus decent-sized outdoor exhibits featuring liberal use of rockwork. It still retains much of its original layout, particularly the predator/prey setups. Its flaws stem in part from that layout, but it's an interesting time capsule. Minnesota shares a style with Toronto and North Carolina of indoor pavilions and massive outdoor exhibits plus large tracts of undeveloped land containing decent wildlife habitat. Like those zoos, it's scale was ultimately too big to build out fully. Minnesota has generally updated its exhibitry with the times more successfully than Milwaukee. Collection-wise, Milwaukee would be better for ABC mammals and herps, Minnesota is better for less common mammals and fish.
If you do decide to visit Minnesota, it's also worth noting that Como can easily be tacked on if you have even a minimal amount of spare time. It's free and very compact, so possible to do a walkthrough in 30 minutes assuming no long stops to watch behaviors or look for hiding birds.
The Como Zoo has giraffes, and the Minnesota Zoo doesn't. How is this even a question?
This message was paid for by the Committee for "If It Doesn't Have Giraffes, It's Crap", and they approve this message.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Also, can Minnesota be done within 3 hours?
No. Minnesota will likely take you most or all of a day. It usually takes me about 6-7 hours (including a meal and the bird show).
If you're really ambitious, there are small zoos in the area that could be tacked into the same day in the evening after you visit. Como is a potential option there, but personally I suggest you check out Snake Discovery or SeaLife Minnesota.
Was this you?