Speculative Zoo Design and Planning forum

[StellarChaser]

We allow the discussion and speculation about extinct animals - so I don't see why we wouldn't also allow discussion about animals that are not currently kept in captivity or animals which are impractical to keep.

I have a question, for certain species like Giant Panda which have not problem in captivity and already have decent number in institutions, but the export is strictly limited by the law. Do you allow any speculation similar to having Giant Panda in zoos outside of China?

 

[Simon Hampel]

I have a question, for certain species like Giant Panda which have not problem in captivity and already have decent number in institutions, but the export is strictly limited by the law. Do you allow any speculation similar to having Giant Panda in zoos outside of China?

I think you'll find plenty of discussion of that nature already on the site - I recall several threads about which zoos would be good to host pandas, so perhaps try searching for one of those?

 

[KevinB]

I have a question regarding recurring recent discussions about the level of realism of speculative zoo design submissions.

There was recently a comment that stated there is apparently an officially supported consensus that submissions have to be as realistic as possible in terms of species choice.

In general, the officially supported consensus is to try to keep the planning as realistic as possible and the fantasy aspect as low as possible.

Now I am wondering to what extent this is an official rule, or what the official position on this matter is.

The submissions I did in the past were usually relatively heavy on 'unrealistic' species.

I have been thinking for a while about doing speculative zoo design work again, but being required to achieve a much higher degree of realism might make that more, and possibly too difficult.

So can someone perhaps give me some information?

 

[Chlidonias]

I have a question regarding recurring recent discussions about the level of realism of speculative zoo design submissions.

There was recently a comment that stated there is apparently an officially supported consensus that submissions have to be as realistic as possible in terms of species choice.



Now I am wondering to what extent this is an official rule, or what the official position on this matter is.

The submissions I did in the past were usually relatively heavy on 'unrealistic' species.

I have been thinking for a while about doing speculative zoo design work again, but being required to achieve a much higher degree of realism might make that more, and possibly too difficult.

So can someone perhaps give me some information?

It isn't an official (or even unofficial) rule. You can certainly use species not kept in captivity - you can even make a zoo based around extinct species - but the aim is for a "realistic" zoo plan. There seems to have arisen an idea that this means actual realism (e.g. species X isn't kept so you can't use it) but this has never been the case.

The plan just needs to be an actual design and not a basic list of species.

And you have to expect critique, because this is Zoochat.

 

[Simon Hampel]

Further to comments by @Chlidonias ... what I don't want to see is stuff like "I have a billion dollars and will build a zoo in a highrise apartment block in downtown New York" - because that is just ridiculous and adds no value. Similarly, made-up animals or scenarios which are pointless "a zoo on the moon!" don't add value either.

In my view, the speculative zoo design and planning forum should be considered to be "educational" - allowing members to experiment with "what-if" scenarios that don't need to be 100% achievable, but do need to be based on the realms of possibility.

So, for example, if you are going to create a zoo based around extinct species - you need to put some thought and effort into it to consider what is likely to have worked based on what we know about those species - not just some random flight of fantasy based on some work of fiction.

I don't want to see zoos based on dragons - they are not real. If you want to build a zoo based on dinosaurs - it had better be well researched and well thought out and design something that could feasibly be achieved - assuming we actually had some dinosaurs to populate it with.

This is not the place for games or fantasy or lists of your favourite animals.

You need to be able to justify your decisions - and as mentioned - you should expect critique for your design choices.

 

[Simon Hampel]

being required to achieve a much higher degree of realism might make that more, and possibly too difficult

Does it help if you think of it as aiming for "feasibility" rather than "realism" ?

So for example, a herd of 100 elephants in a city zoo - not feasible. An aquarium with blue whales - not feasible.

A walkthrough aviary containing wandering albatross? You'd better have a really good design in mind to justify how you could possibly achieve this - otherwise, it is simply not feasible (I doubt it would be achievable in any case).

 

[MRJ]

Further to comments by @Chlidonias ... what I don't want to see is stuff like "I have a billion dollars and will build a zoo in a highrise apartment block in downtown New York" .

Interestingly, there is a zoo on a floor of a highrise building in Chennai, India. The whole building is the home of a billionaire, and the zoo is for his children, so I guess does not really count.

 

[Aardwolf]

A colleague of mine has always said, “I could design a magnificent blue whale aquarium exhibit for you - it’s just a question of whether anyone could afford it”

It would be fun to see folks take educated, researched stabs at species that are considered very difficult or nearly impossible, such as albatross or great white shark. If nothing else, it would be an interesting exercise in creative thought and problem solving

 

[Simon Hampel]

It would be fun to see folks take educated, researched stabs at species that are considered very difficult or nearly impossible, such as albatross or great white shark. If nothing else, it would be an interesting exercise in creative thought and problem solving

I have no problems with this type of discussion ... the "how could we do this?" type of debate can be quite educational. It's when you just assume that it's a trivial matter and include it in your zoo design without any discussion about how you would make it work - that I feel it falls into fantasy territory.

 

[Simon Hampel]

Interestingly, there is a zoo on a floor of a highrise building in Chennai, India. The whole building is the home of a billionaire, and the zoo is for his children, so I guess does not really count.

I mean, who would have thought building a zoo in a casino was ever a good idea - but it's been done.

It does also depend on your definition of "zoo". If all you keep is herps or invertebrates, you could build it pretty much anywhere. That's not really my point though - the point is that assuming you have infinite resources and can do whatever you want - does not make it an interesting or educational exercise.

 

[KevinB]

It isn't an official (or even unofficial) rule. You can certainly use species not kept in captivity - you can even make a zoo based around extinct species - but the aim is for a "realistic" zoo plan. There seems to have arisen an idea that this means actual realism (e.g. species X isn't kept so you can't use it) but this has never been the case.

The plan just needs to be an actual design and not a basic list of species.

And you have to expect critique, because this is Zoochat.

Further to comments by @Chlidonias ... what I don't want to see is stuff like "I have a billion dollars and will build a zoo in a highrise apartment block in downtown New York" - because that is just ridiculous and adds no value. Similarly, made-up animals or scenarios which are pointless "a zoo on the moon!" don't add value either.

In my view, the speculative zoo design and planning forum should be considered to be "educational" - allowing members to experiment with "what-if" scenarios that don't need to be 100% achievable, but do need to be based on the realms of possibility.

So, for example, if you are going to create a zoo based around extinct species - you need to put some thought and effort into it to consider what is likely to have worked based on what we know about those species - not just some random flight of fantasy based on some work of fiction.

I don't want to see zoos based on dragons - they are not real. If you want to build a zoo based on dinosaurs - it had better be well researched and well thought out and design something that could feasibly be achieved - assuming we actually had some dinosaurs to populate it with.

This is not the place for games or fantasy or lists of your favourite animals.

You need to be able to justify your decisions - and as mentioned - you should expect critique for your design choices.

Does it help if you think of it as aiming for "feasibility" rather than "realism" ?

So for example, a herd of 100 elephants in a city zoo - not feasible. An aquarium with blue whales - not feasible.

A walkthrough aviary containing wandering albatross? You'd better have a really good design in mind to justify how you could possibly achieve this - otherwise, it is simply not feasible (I doubt it would be achievable in any case).

Thank you both for this very interesting and useful information.

I have thought about it a bit and I do not feel that the projects I previously did - or would do in the future, which would be very much in the same vain - sufficiently meet or would sufficiently meet the criteria set forth here - especially those of explaining decisions and feasibility - and that my species choices were too much in fantasy territory and not sufficiently explained. Therefore I have decided that I will not be going ahead with doing speculative zoo work again, and make my retirement from this aspect of the hobby permanent. Understandably the bar is set quite high for these matters, and I do not believe I met it in the past or could meet it in the future. I feel that my previous projects were too much fantasy lists of species with a bit of design and insufficient explanation of the species choices, and I do not think I could do much better in the future.

Nonetheless I think the question I asked was useful and possibly helpful to others, so I am happy I asked it.

 

[KevinB]

Thank you both for this very interesting and useful information.

I have thought about it a bit and I do not feel that the projects I previously did - or would do in the future, which would be very much in the same vain - sufficiently meet or would sufficiently meet the criteria set forth here - especially those of explaining decisions and feasibility - and that my species choices were too much in fantasy territory and not sufficiently explained. Therefore I have decided that I will not be going ahead with doing speculative zoo work again, and make my retirement from this aspect of the hobby permanent. Understandably the bar is set quite high for these matters, and I do not believe I met it in the past or could meet it in the future. I feel that my previous projects were too much fantasy lists of species with a bit of design and insufficient explanation of the species choices, and I do not think I could do much better in the future.

Nonetheless I think the question I asked was useful and possibly helpful to others, so I am happy I asked it.

I have re-read the discussions in this thread multiple times, as well as my own previous post, and I have come to the conclusion that my earlier response was probably more negative and radical than necessary. I shouldn't have judged my previous projects as strictly or have been as strong in my decision. I do think I could probably adapt my projects to better fit the goals of this subforum, and I might still want to speculative zoo work. I am saying at this point that I will being those this again, but I will be keeping the option open, knowing I can probably put in the effort to come up with more realistic and feasible, and possibly more small scale, projects.

 

[StellarChaser]

We allow the discussion and speculation about extinct animals - so I don't see why we wouldn't also allow discussion about animals that are not currently kept in captivity or animals which are impractical to keep.

So that means it is practical for a speculative Canadian zoo to have certain species that are absent in AZA but available in EAZA in real life? For example, there is no Visayan Spotted Deer in North America but 31 facilities in Europe hold them, is it OK that I plan a zoo in Canada and import these deers from Europe.

 

[Simon Hampel]

So that means it is practical for a speculative Canadian zoo to have certain species that are absent in AZA but available in EAZA in real life? For example, there is no Visayan Spotted Deer in North America but 31 facilities in Europe hold them, is it OK that I plan a zoo in Canada and import these deers from Europe.

I think that would be fine. It is no beyond the realms of possibility that this could ever happen.

I would also be okay with animals that are not permitted (or infrequently allowed) for political or other reasons. For example, Giant Pandas, Platypuses and so on - but also things like importing exotic birds into Australia, which is currently prohibited for biosecurity reasons.

 

[StellarChaser]

I think that would be fine. It is no beyond the realms of possibility that this could ever happen.

I would also be okay with animals that are not permitted (or infrequently allowed) for political or other reasons. For example, Giant Pandas, Platypuses and so on - but also things like importing exotic birds into Australia, which is currently prohibited for biosecurity reasons.

What about the species that have no problem being kept in captivity, but are not sustainable, for example, Mountain Tapir, are they practical?

 

[zooman]

Interestingly, there is a zoo on a floor of a highrise building in Chennai, India. The whole building is the home of a billionaire, and the zoo is for his children, so I guess does not really count.

Lets include Dallas World Aquarium in this conversation?

 

[Austin the Sengi]

Looking back at the forum rules, is there a possibility that the moderators can close any spec zoo thread with little to no new content? As long as they are given the consent of the thread’s creator in advance?

I ask this, because, I have wanted to close my exhibit showcase thread for quite sometime; and when I ask / report the moderators to close it for me. The thread is never closed.

I understand about not wanting to close my Rembrandt Park thread, since I am made it very clear with the early days of this thread. But for my showcase thread, specifically, I do not have the same begging request in regards of its closure. So, if possible, could this be issue among our non-active spec zoo threads please be addressed.

 

[Chlidonias]

Looking back at the forum rules, is there a possibility that the moderators can close any spec zoo thread with little to no new content? As long as they are given the consent of the thread’s creator in advance?

I ask this, because, I have wanted to close my exhibit showcase thread for quite sometime; and when I ask / report the moderators to close it for me. The thread is never closed.

I understand about not wanting to close my Rembrandt Park thread, since I am made it very clear with the early days of this thread. But for my showcase thread, specifically, I do not have the same begging request in regards of its closure. So, if possible, could this be issue among our non-active spec zoo threads please be addressed.

If you don't want to post in a thread again, then just don't post in it - there is no reason the thread needs to be locked.

 

[Austin the Sengi]

I suppose then, that I shouldn’t have been so needy to the moderators for closing a thread I no longer choose to continue. So really, it all came down to personal impatience; and I want to thank you Chli for making me reconsider this decision.

 

[Mickey]

Should one showcase their exhibit/habitat designs in a media that isn't drawing but a videogame (eg. Zoo Tycoon 2), would that count as belonging in the Zoo Games and Simulators category because it is a game or as long as it is explained and thought out logistically it would still be eligible for the Speculative Design forum?