San Diego Zoo New Map!!!

[ANyhuis]

That really isn't a good comparison.

OK, you're right. What I forgot was the word "almost". That is, saying the San Diego Zoo is not the best zoo is America is ALMOST like saying New York City is not the largest city in the USA.

There is little attempt at making it an immersion exhibit. Immersion is what has become expected for really great exhibits.

MWeb has answered this pretty well, and I agree. We are all "expecting" a perfect "immersion" exhibit, and that goes for me too -- especially after seeing what may be the world's best immersion zoo, Bioparc Valencia in Spain. But like I said, this exhibit (EO) is different. Rather than immerse you in nature, they are immersing you in the past. But that takes some getting used to.

 

[reduakari]

But like I said, this exhibit (EO) is different. Rather than immerse you in nature, they are immersing you in the past. But that takes some getting used to.

Ah the past, when giant oil rigs filled the sky and enormous steel posts sprung from the earth--and domestic horses pranced about in dusty metal pens.....

The idea of transporting visitors back to the Pleistocene was both original and intriguing--but has been entirely lost in the execution. Maturing vegetation will someday soften the edges of some of EOs exhibits, but the really basic flaws in the design and construction of the complex will never go away. This is easily the most disappointing "blockbuster " zoo exhibit in memory.

 

[Ituri]

To build on what reduakari said, there doesn't seem to be enough of an attempt made to screen out elements that distract from the scene. Case in point:

There is no attempt to screen the buildings and facilities in the background. These items are right in the field of view, and distract enough to make "the suspension of disbelief" a very difficult thing to do. You can look at the front elements of the exhibit and start to feel a Pleistocene California thing going on, but as soon as your eye moves to the back of the enclosure SNAP, you are in the present looking at birds in a zoo.

 

[mweb08]

To build on what reduakari said, there doesn't seem to be enough of an attempt made to screen out elements that distract from the scene. Case in point:

There is no attempt to screen the buildings and facilities in the background. These items are right in the field of view, and distract enough to make "the suspension of disbelief" a very difficult thing to do. You can look at the front elements of the exhibit and start to feel a Pleistocene California thing going on, but as soon as your eye moves to the back of the enclosure SNAP, you are in the present looking at birds in a zoo.

Do you actually forget that in any exhibit?

Some of the best immersion exhibits are when your indoors(part of CGF, Omaha exhibits, other rain forest exhibits), yet your indoors, obviously that takes away from feeling like you're in Africa or wherever.

Examples of what you point out here can be found in many very good exhibits.

I like immersion a lot, but I think some on here get a little carried away with their expectations of it and what they consider ok and not in terms of immersion.

 

[Ituri]

As opposed to the necessities involved with an exhibit being indoors, this is a completely avoidable distraction. The key to good immersion design is to eliminate all unnecessary elements that contradict the setting you are trying to create. This was clearly not taken into account in the designing of this exhibit.

For examples of good immersion design see: Woodland Park Zoo, Northern Trail; San Diego Wild Animal Park, Heart of Africa (before it was messed up with the new diesel truck ride); Anything at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

 

[mweb08]

As opposed to the necessities involved with an exhibit being indoors, this is a completely avoidable distraction. The key to good immersion design is to eliminate all unnecessary elements that contradict the setting you are trying to create. This was clearly not taken into account in the designing of this exhibit.
For examples of good immersion design see: Woodland Park Zoo, Northern Trail; San Diego Wild Animal Park, Heart of Africa (before it was messed up with the new diesel truck ride); Anything at Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Nor is it in many exhibits that are considered good to great.

Regardless, I don't see why you're making this point, no one is saying it's a great immersion exhibit or a great exhibit period. I'm just saying that it's not a total disaster and better than what people give it credit for.

I think part of the reason it gets bashed so much is because it was so expensive, it was hyped a lot, and it's at the world famous SD Zoo. So in other words, very high expectations. Plus there seems to be some people who are negative towards that zoo in general.

And yes, it fell short of meeting those expectations, but if this was done at a different zoo, without as much hype, and on a cheaper budget(which would simply be accomplished by using undeveloped property and being in a cheaper area), I think the reaction would be much different. I'm not saying people would be calling great, but don't think the reactions would be nearly as negative.

 

[Ituri]

I think you make a very good point. I am one of those who frequently gets painted as a San Diego Zoo basher, but believe me that's a relatively recent development. They are straying away from what I personally felt made them great, so I find it really easy to criticize. I'm probably even more harsh on them because I feel so disappointed and frankly, betrayed.

I think many people's reaction to it is because they don't feel it adds the value back that was taken away when it was built. Granted Horn and Hoof Mesa was not the average visitor's favorite exhibit area, but if it had to go, why replace it with medriocity of a different variety?

But I really think you are right, the reason it's so frequently bagged on is that it simply did not live up to its hype, or potential.

 

[mweb08]

I wouldn't call EO mediocre in terms of all zoo exhibits. It's much better than that imo. And I visited 2-3 times just so you know I'm not just judging based on pics. Now considering the budget and expectations, yeah, it's mediocre. But the zoo is much better now than it was before it imo. But then again, exhibit after exhibit of hoofstock isn't that exciting for me either.