Should Exhibits Last Forever?

[pachyderm pro]

In recent years, we've seen hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into new exhibit complexes across the zoo world - mostly in America, though there are absolutely some notable exceptions in Europe. There is a separate thread on the topic of that, but for myself it begs another question. Zoos are constantly changing, as if you aren't moving forward your moving backwards, however will all of the money sunk Into mega-complexes, will some of the recent zoo exhibits be seen as obsolete one day?

I think perhaps the most intriguing example is Tropic World at the Brookfield zoo. Its over an acre in size and took over a decade to built. However, its clear to everyone that the building is also incredibly flawed and outdated at the moment. At the same time, these flaws and can and soon will be fixed by renovation, rather than a complete replacement. However, what happens another 50 years down the road? Will it still be considered outdated? I feel like Tropic World is an exhibit that simply won't ever be removed for better or worse. There are other examples like Omaha's Lied Jungle or Bronx's JungleWorld. Will they one day be considered outdated as well. Will even Zurich's Masoala be one day outdated? To be blunt, I feel like the latter could very well last forever. I don't believe that exhibit will ever be outdated.

The point i'm trying to get at here, as that while should exhibits be made to go on to stand the test of time, or be made to be easily demolished one day to replace it again once more?

 

[amur leopard]

In recent years, we've seen hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into new exhibit complexes across the zoo world - mostly in America, though there are absolutely some notable exceptions in Europe. There is a separate thread on the topic of that, but for myself it begs another question. Zoos are constantly changing, as if you aren't moving forward your moving backwards, however will all of the money sunk Into mega-complexes, will some of the recent zoo exhibits be seen as obsolete one day?

I think perhaps the most intriguing example is Tropic World at the Brookfield zoo. Its over an acre in size and took over a decade to built. However, its clear to everyone that the building is also incredibly flawed and outdated at the moment. At the same time, these flaws and can and soon will be fixed by renovation, rather than a complete replacement. However, what happens another 50 years down the road? Will it still be considered outdated? I feel like Tropic World is an exhibit that simply won't ever be removed for better or worse. There are other examples like Omaha's Lied Jungle or Bronx's JungleWorld. Will they one day be considered outdated as well. Will even Zurich's Masoala be one day outdated? To be blunt, I feel like the latter could very well last forever. I don't believe that exhibit will ever be outdated.

The point i'm trying to get at here, as that while should exhibits be made to go on to stand the test of time, or be made to be easily demolished one day to replace it again once more?

Interesting thought. I feel as if exhibits will go in the direction of Masoala in being more and more immersive but also better for the animals. In Europe at least visitor numbers are linked with exhibit quality - people tend to feel guilty when they see animals in poor enclosures. With increasing opposition to zoos within the 'animal welfare' lot, zoos will have to develop and make new exhibits which satisfy the crowd and are good for the animals.

Currently, it is hard to think of points of development for Masoala, Burgers' Bush, CGF etc., but there will come a time when such exhibits will suffer from ageing infrastructure or not looking up to date. Not any time soon I'll wager, but it will come. In the meantime, more exhibits like this will come up.

In conclusion, I think it is essential that zoos continue to develop in order to stay one step ahead of PETA and the like and to make visits educational and pleasing. Masoala and similar exhibits are in my opinion way ahead of their time, but will be caught up before long, and yes, I reckon one day, whether it takes ten, twenty or fifty years to come, Masoala will be outdated.

 

[Zooplantman]

to be easily demolished

Popsicle sticks?
An enclosure and barn to keep elephants needs to be of a certain strength (for example). You can design a hoofstock exhibit to be inexpensively built and inexpensively demolished but not a sea lion exhibit.

Mega-exhibits costing mega bucks are not easily abandoned; but sometimes they are.
When they are, the cost of demolition and up-grading infrastructure would build an entire new exhibit (sometimes several). So a new exhibit is suddenly unfundable if it requires first tearing down large masonry buildings.

When zoos do a master plan they take old exhibits into account, planning for what new animals might be added to the collection and what old exhibits need to be refurbished or replaced.
Certainly there are the very rare exhibits that never satisfy. But most exhibits last easily twenty or thirty years without major issues.

In the end there are many exhibits that work for animals and the visitors. They simply bore Zoochatters

 

[DavidBrown]

I

The point i'm trying to get at here, as that while should exhibits be made to go on to stand the test of time, or be made to be easily demolished one day to replace it again once more?

You answered your own question with the exhibits that you cite. The rain forest exhibits that you mention are all over or nearly 30 years old, and there is no indication that any of them are going to be replaced in the foreseeable future. All of them have outdated components that hopefully get addressed over time. Apparently Brookfield has plans to build outdoor ape yards at some point for Tropic World. Omaha has fixed some of the egregiously bad exhibits in Lied Jungle.

Sometimes temporary exhibit structures are built like for visiting animals like koalas that are then repurposed for other species or torn down, but those are obviously qualitatively different from massive multimillion dollar permanent exhibits expected to last indefinitely.

 

[gentle lemur]

George Mottershead had the right idea as Chester developed. Design your buildings well, with the animals' needs as the first priority, but try to be economical if you can (for example by using recycled materials) and expect them to have a limited lifespan. Animal husbandry and public expectations move on. Zoos have to be 'always building'. That of course implies always demolishing and always rebuilding too.
The alternative is to let fancy architects design buildings which make statements of one sort or another. They are lauded when they first open, but sooner or later turn into increasingly expensive white elephants. Learn from problems that London zoo continues to face with the bleak and leaky Mappin Terraces, the trivial Tecton penguin pool, the useless Casson elephant house, the cramped Clore and so on.

 

[MonkeyBat]

Overall I believe this is a complicated question. At first I was thinking well, these exhibits are just too expensive and took too much work to destroy, but then consider the Cat Complex, which took millions of dollars to create, was praised for it's groundbreaking design, and created a sense of pride in Omaha, only to be destroyed for being outdated.

And then there's the problem of renovation, which can go terrible if not executed well. Take for example one of the most controversial animal exhibits ever, Elephant Odyssey. It was to replace to outdated hoof stock grottos, but the way it's executed is just sort of weird, not bad, but the "utilitrees" and overall presentation of it just sort of is just strange. I'm not going to rant on because this is a topic well discussed on this site. But it just shows "modern" renovations aren't always going to be "world class" and might have to be renovated again.

Overall I thinks it's a slippery slope. There are many exhibits that are decades old and still are ahead of the times (Lied Jungle, Ituri Forest/Hippo River, Africa at North Carolina Zoo) and others that are brand new and are terrible (Orangutan Chapel )

 

[MonkeyBat]

(Also quick note on the exhibits I called "weird") I'm not saying they don't work well for the animals, but I'm saying more people want to see realism when they go to zoos (at least in the US), and it doesn't work in those exhibits..

 

[Jurek7]

In the last 50 years, zoos were constantly changing because they were learning needs of diverse species. I think it will continue for at least 30 years and then slow or stop.

For example, most existing exhibits of elephants or flamingos need to be upgraded or rebuild. Just few years ago zoos learned how to keep indian rhinos on the right ground. However for some species zoos already hit the plateau. Mountain goats in Hamburg and baboons in Wroclaw live on their rocky exhibits since 75 years or so. Exhibits fill all the needs of animals. Little improvement was needed other than rebuilding because of wear.

One Dutch zoo designer, whose name I cannot find, summed it very well. Zoos should not build cheap, but should build exhibits which are easily converted. An example I can think of is a building with internal walls easy to knock down to redesign larger (or smaller) exhibits.

 

[Therabu]

I definitely agree on the adaptability/flexibility feature of zoo exhibits. We have seen numerous successful refurbishments by simply merging enclosure or downgrading size and space need of exhibited animals.

I would say exhibits that replicate the more closely the natural environment of animals (not onely aesthetically but also in terms of behavior diversity) will be the more long lasting ones. I cannot predict when we Masoala or Burgers Bush will be outdated but it is very likely later than more artificial exhibits such as Leipzig Gondwanaland or Paris Zoo greenhouse. Another example coming to my mind are gorilla territories. Despite being quite old, the huge and very simple gorilla exhibit of Apenheul is more likely to last than a super artificial and costly installation such as the volcanoes of Pairi Daiza (among others).

I think it would be interesting to assess the average "life expectancy" of exhibits between zoos. I expect big discrepancies between zoos like Arnhem which are only producing one big and innovative exhibit every few years compared to zoos producing new exhibits every year.