In the meeting minutes, there is interesting drama at the end...a rift between the Director and GLAZA over Zoo Lights event!
Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens Los Angeles Zoo News 2021
- Thread starter vogelcommando
- Start date
-
- Tags
- los angeles zoo
In the meeting minutes, there is interesting drama at the end...a rift between the Director and GLAZA over Zoo Lights event!
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Zoo expansion plan faces opposition from those who would preserve the existing parkland
$650M plan would give Los Angeles Zoo flashy transformation
$650M plan would give Los Angeles Zoo flashy transformation
Controversial $650M plan would give L.A. Zoo a theme park-style makeover | KTLA
This article saids they want to give Los Angeles a theme park style makeover. How much do master plans typically cost? I’m also a bit concerned for the wildlife that lives in Griffith Park now. Probably gonna get hate for saying that but you know Griffith Park isn’t that big of a space. Not to mention there’s deer, mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, and all kinds of other plant and animal biodiversity that live there now. So ya I’m a bit concerned and it’s probably an unpopular opinion but I’m kinda a bit worried about this
This article saids they want to give Los Angeles a theme park style makeover. How much do master plans typically cost? I’m also a bit concerned for the wildlife that lives in Griffith Park now. Probably gonna get hate for saying that but you know Griffith Park isn’t that big of a space. Not to mention there’s deer, mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, and all kinds of other plant and animal biodiversity that live there now. So ya I’m a bit concerned and it’s probably an unpopular opinion but I’m kinda a bit worried about this
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Assuming you mean the cost of the new construction rather than the cost of the Planning process, there is no "typical." Depends on the size of the zoo, the extent of the new developments, the region. Anywhere from USD10million to USD175million seems fair
It is controversial to some (with a Hidden agenda and no space for living world or endangered species). I do not think many people would be opporde to hevig a better zoo.
The zoo made a statement regarding the article by the Los Angeles Times and the misrepresentation of what the zoo plans to do for their 20 year master plan. It states that the focus of Vision Plan is regarding animal welfare foremost, not to make a theme park styled zoo. Also doing their due diligence about the environmental impact on their expansion.
LOS ANGELES ZOO STATEMENT: THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE ABOUT THE ZOO’S VISION PLAN & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens (LA Zoo)
LOS ANGELES ZOO STATEMENT: THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ARTICLE ABOUT THE ZOO’S VISION PLAN & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens (LA Zoo)
That is a fantastic rebuttal for the zoo, good for them!
Opinion: Don't even think about 'upgrading' the L.A. Zoo, readers say
Well so far the LA Times have continued bashing the LA Zoo publicly. I’m glad to hear that’s not the case to make the LA Zoo a theme park like area
Mr.Ivory
Well-Known Member
That's just pathetic, this when you now people have nothing better to with their lives
Just read the Opinion piece and it does come off rather much trying to back up their claims made in their first article, which I might add was not in the LA Times Opinion section so not making any retractions thus far. If it truly was “unanimous” that their readers all feel opposed to the plan, they either cherry picked a select few that indeed reply to the Editor that backed their article or it truly wasn’t that many people writing back about the article. Why not post all the replies then? I actually want to reply to them and write in about this huge load of bull excrement to the Editor.
Bengal Tiger
Well-Known Member
These people I say. They should really be doing something useful with themselves instead of bothering the LA zoo. All of these pesky folks (not just reporters) just get in the way of animal conservation.
What irks me more about the article is how it’s made out that the zoo is seemingly going to compete with So Cal amusement parks.
Not to come off as bashing on my own home zoo but even based on the projections that zoo expects with increased annual visitors with their Vision plan, doesn’t come close to the main theme parks in regards of attendance numbers. Disneyland and Universal Studios Hollywood get millions more visitors than any zoo in California. Disneyland alone has seen roughly 18 million visitors and Universal Studios around 10 million visitors annually, albeit pre Pandemic.
The most famous zoo in California, San Diego Zoo, raked in 4 million only after opening Walkabout Australia in 2018. The LA Zoo gets about 1.8 million annual visitors. By stating that the zoo is aiming to compete with these California theme parks is beyond ludicrous and outright inflammatory, just being sensationalist for the sake of being so at least in my opinion.
And as far as the Vision Plan is concerned, anything can change and perhaps scrap any of the unnecessary additions to the Zoo which should foremost think about animal welfare above all and the ideas talked about in the plan being goods, such as using exhibit space effectively and increasing habitats for their animals.
Last edited:
I feel the paper is almost certainly lying, since when is anything ever unanimous these days? The only reason I can see for an actual unanimous response is a certain group chose to respond and nobody else really cared. It seems more like someone put a bug in their ear about the situation.
Mr.Ivory
Well-Known Member
Found this article regarding the expansion Inside L.A. Zoo's five-year conservation plan
LA Zoo Expansion is Taking Shape | Friends of Griffith Park
Found more about the Los Angeles Zoos expansion and Friends of Griffith Park is not happy with the expansion still.
here’s where I honestly stand with this and if I get canceled for saying this it wouldn’t be the first time. The wildlife in Los Angeles is in serious trouble. They’re getting killed on freeways, populations are becoming genetically isolated leading to problems of inbreeding, wildfires is another problem, rodenticides. They are living on an already fragmented landscape and apex predators that are living in Griffith Park such as coyotes, bobcats, gray foxes, raptors, and mountain Lion P-22. The Los Angeles Zoo needs to work with what they have. I know that LA Times article exaggerated the zoos expansion by a lot however what hasn’t changed apparently is taking more land from Griffith Park.
LA’s biodiversity is in serious trouble. In this case I have to put my foot down and say no here. I support making the LA zoo better, but I don’t support taking land from an animal that seriously needs it more like P-22.
Found more about the Los Angeles Zoos expansion and Friends of Griffith Park is not happy with the expansion still.
here’s where I honestly stand with this and if I get canceled for saying this it wouldn’t be the first time. The wildlife in Los Angeles is in serious trouble. They’re getting killed on freeways, populations are becoming genetically isolated leading to problems of inbreeding, wildfires is another problem, rodenticides. They are living on an already fragmented landscape and apex predators that are living in Griffith Park such as coyotes, bobcats, gray foxes, raptors, and mountain Lion P-22. The Los Angeles Zoo needs to work with what they have. I know that LA Times article exaggerated the zoos expansion by a lot however what hasn’t changed apparently is taking more land from Griffith Park.
LA’s biodiversity is in serious trouble. In this case I have to put my foot down and say no here. I support making the LA zoo better, but I don’t support taking land from an animal that seriously needs it more like P-22.
This is ZooChat, not twitter. I think you'll be just fine regardless of any opposition
.Exactly how much land is the zoo wanting to take over to add to the property? I was under the impression that the master plan was based around projects that are to be built over existing exhibits. I will definitely agree that LA should focus on rectefying its major faults (giraffes, lions, the various roundhouses) before even considering an expansion.
This is ZooChat, not twitter. I think you'll be just fine regardless of any opposition
Exactly how much land is the zoo wanting to take over to add to the property? I was under the impression that the master plan was based around projects that are to be built over existing exhibits. I will definitely agree that LA should focus on rectefying its major faults (giraffes, lions, the various roundhouses) before even considering an expansion.
they plan to take 23 acres of land from Griffith Park. I personally believe in this case they need to improve the exhibits and land acreage they have now. Practically that whole zoo needs improved
From the Alternative Plan 1 that the Friends of Griffith Park speak about supporting, it does come with caveats from the EIR. When reading the EIR, the Alternative 1 Plan would be not touching the 21 acres of land that is within zoo property. While the is preserving native and non native vegetation as it currently stands, it will affect the plans proposed for the sections of the zoo.
Along with a less than expected visitor increase proposed by the plan, what the report eludes to is that in order to make full utilization of exhibit space/design for animal welfare they they need to take into consideration the sections where visitors will walk/transport around which may not be the most effective for its operation and forgoing immersive experience for visitors in several proposed ideas for the 2 decade long project.
I myself go back and forth on this, outweighing the benefit and cost of what the proposed Vision Plan has in store. First and foremost, animal welfare must be on top of the list above all else. No way around it, that’s needed to not only prove zoos can adapt to a modern world but also show that the work they do is essential now more than ever. But we also have to think about the visitor experience and how they may affect the future of projects for the zoo. A balance of animal welfare, exhibit design, and immersive experiences are just a few key points that need to work in tandem to make for an overall great experience at least in my opinion. That may mean making the zoo much more immersive than it is when design their exhibits so guests can see more naturalistic homes for the animals and also being transported to a part of the world without leaving LA.
It’s hard for me to say that they shouldn’t expand at all since it may be necessary to fully realize their plans but also at the same time to act like there won’t be any sort of impact to local ecosystems. I just hope whatever impact may truly come of this project is as minimal as possible and truly go all in to make one of the best zoos in the country to prove that zoos are needed and here to stay.
Last edited:
While I agree the zoo really needs to focus on improving their current infrastructure before expansion (which is also their main priorities in the vision plan), I'm not sure I really agree with the land use argument. Griffith Park is just over 4,300 acres total. The zoo currently is 133 acres. Very tiny fraction of the park. If you look at the satellite view, the zoo is hardly half the size of its neighbor, the Wilson golf course. Also to my understanding from the master plan, they're not looking to expand into undeveloped areas of Griffith Park, they're actually working on areas adjacent to their current parking lot. I think most of their expansion comes from the expanding parking into that small parking lot on the south-east side, and a little bit there between their parking lot and the freeway off ramps/Zoo Drive.