Taronga Zoo Spider Monkeys

Great comments

I defintally agree with many of your comments, particularly the investmnets in the entry precints to cope with and increase in visitation.

Also, the masterplanning to regional guidleines and species mangment is a great thing.

One thing i disagree with is, and again glyn would no better than anyone my stance, is whether zebra and giraffe have a place in the zoo. Whilst i agree that the zoo could survive, and still be a very successful zoo with out them, i have always beleived that if a zoo can hold them, why not. They do have great customer appeal, as well as effective savannah interp, especially in relation to the extinciton of the australiasian mega fauna due to human interefence. If an exhibit is designed well enough, i beleive we should eb able to hold them. Whilst we would all agree that the current giraffe exhibt many be to small for 4 giraffes and 3 (or 4?) zebs, the expansion calls for a very large area to be excavated, to create a savannah as alrge, if not larger than the ele exhibit.

I don't beleive taronag should hold a breeding group of any large afrucan ungulates, i ebelive there is a place for eduactional animals, in groupings no more than currently held. If we treble or quadruople the size of the current exhibit, with out increasing inhabitants, than i affirm that then can be held for eduactional purposes only.

On hippos, i beleive if we had more animals in the region, i would suppourt a large scale hippo exhibit on the scale of san diegos, but since there is only 2 breeding pairs in the ragion, and dubbo able to house many aniamls, in alrger, natural groups and surroundings, then there is no reason why the pygmy hippo can not fill the pace of the larger common hippo, and with correct interp, the pygmy hippo has much for eduactional appeal due to it's endagered status, and it is a realtively unknown relative of the larger hippo.
 
i personally dont think Western Plains Zoo has a good hippo exhibit, in fact I think its quite poor and will never get any better because that would require too much of a financial investment. im using the same argument here as Zooboy, for I think there is no way Taronga could emulate an African Savannah as well as WPZ.
i truly think that creating a world class hippo exhibit at Taronga with spacious waterholes, river banks, underwater viewing galleries and substantial holding facilities would be more feasible, and more attractive to visitors.
also long term its highly likely that only River Hippos will survive in our region. I love pygmy hippos but dont see the point in investing heavily into creating exhibits for them which will ultimately become empty, and lets face it are pretty much unfillable. empty Malayan Tapir exhibit? stick otters in it, or salt water crocs. when it comes to African species there are no alternatives other than an empty exhibit. long term, I would probably send some River Hippo back to WPZ to go out on the savannah but in the meantime I think theyd be great in Sydney. On the location of the giraffe exhibit, with a huge deep river system, underwater gallery wrapping around the old giraffe house and a high grassy bank accross the back of the enclosure. past the chimpanzee exhibit I would create an amazing lion enclosure (where ostrich are currently) then the exhibit sequence would roughly go lemur, gorilla, colobus and serval, with the serval, mandrill and colobus exhibit clustered around the site of the old restaurant.
my vision for both zoos are obviously linked quite closely. i would rationalise the Western Plains Zoo collection down to mainly endangered species or species which need greater numbers in the region. for example, replacing the number of river hippo at WPZ with Indian Rhino, ensuring their viabilty.
i would also concentrate giraffe and zebra out at Dubbo, as well as have small packs of dhole etc. in reverse, I would like to see at least a pair of Maned Wolves and Brazillian Tapir back in Sydney.
as for interpreting the mega fauna die offs around the world there is no reason why such a display couldnt be created using living macropods and life size models or similarly trace the evolution of humans at the chimp exhibit with a fossil dig, etc.
great points but
 
on heritage enclosures....

just to jump in here - whilst i respect the heritage listing of buildings in cities and suburbs, i don't see any value in maintaining ancient zoo exhibits, and think zoos should be free to demolish them.

the educational benefit is so marginally minimal and insignificant and most of the time they have little or no architectural appeal.

of course some have elements that are worth saving, maybe a nice old motif on an elephant house perhaps, but really, do we need to maintain it all? melbourne's giraffe enclosure is heritage listed. yet in my eyes its of no value whatsoever and contains no period features.

all these outdated old exhibits do is waste a lot of space and thus encourage zoo's to try and continue to utilise them.

taronga's old spider monkey pavilion is no exception here.
 
ancient zoo exhibits

as I am keen on Zoochitecture , I read this thread with great interest .
I can understand why heritage listed buildings are not for demolition -- we will have no heritage left .
However , I beg to ask the question ; Are you able to move the structure to another part of the zoo where it may have a better use in todays world ?

If so , perhaps you could put an old bars and grills cage right after the entrance , so that the people who visit the zoo find themselves in it , and a sign could ask something like ..... how would you like to live here ?
The sign could them go on to explain the heritage nature of the building , and tell the public that the animals now have much better housing .
If nothing else , a sign outside the old cage could state that the animals enclosed are homo sapiens , and are located throughout the world , but a large population in Asia ......

The heritage fencing around Melbourne Zoo could be uplifted , and rehoused along part of the perimeter of an expanded zoo . The fencing will not be demolished , just relocated . Surely National Heritage could agree to this sort of compromise , if push came to shove !
 
i agree.

many zoos do end up getting around the heritage listing by remodeling the enclosure so much that its hardly recognisable anyway. melbournes giraffe exhibit is a perfect example. the original building was covered in shotcrete and new crushes added. the perimeter fence was replaced with a moat and a large part of the back wall was removed to merge the giraffe and zebra exhibits. whats left of this hertitage giraffe house? not much and certainly nothing recognisable.

likewise what's the point in retaining the old seal pools at taronga if they will no longer be identifiable as seal pools? no doubt they will be disguised into a tropical waterfall garden complete with palms rocks and plantings. if they are to be disguised why keep them?

sure the elephant temple at taronga is attractive and can be utilised, unmolested for another purpose, so keep it. but really are we going a little too far?
 
I'm all for heritage listings and preservation of historic structures but when it comes to zoos, this can actually get in the way of them doing their work as well as they should and can be a complete hindrance.

From the Zoological Parks Board:
"The Board aims to maximise the visitor experience by providing a unique and exciting educational tour of each zoo with animals exhibited in an environment similar to their natural habitat."

The problem of course is that the laws, guidelines, policies that are there to protect our heritage can be extreme. The Seal Pools at Taronga would be an example of this.

It becomes an argument of whether the zoo should place heritage over the concern of their animals.

However, I do believe it would be a shame to demolish some of Taronga's historic exhibits.

I am fond of some of them for the character they add. There is something somewhat interesting about the Spider Monkey exhibit.

If it is getting in the way of the zoo establishing a new precinct or building a new exhibit then yes, they should get rid of it, not compromise their plans to accommodate it.
Relocation would be great if possible, however some structures are very difficult to move.
 
Heritage

One idea would be to get the Heritage team and the zoo team together , to find solutions/compromises .
It should be the heritage team to inform the zoo exactly what is of heritage nature ( and not just blanket group it , and say , eg " the whole of the upper zoo " ) and explain WHY a structure is of heritage nature .
The zoo can then explain to the Heritage folk as to why the structure is no longer useful in its original role .
The two parties should then work together towards either ;
relocation
putting it to a new use .

Having dealt with the Historic Places trust in NZ on an urban renewal project , I have found them to be reasonably flexible and wanting to get a win/win situation if they cant have total 100% "leave it alone" preservation

Sensitive alteration or absorbing into a new project is more palatable to them than the threat of demolition

In Taronga Zoo case , I agree that it is very difficult to relocate seal ponds or bear pits , but I would be very sad if they demolished the entry building and builta state of the art office block there instead !
 
Dont worry Nig the old entry buildings are SAFE! They would never touch them! After the famnous chimp group, and giraffe/syd harbour view, the entry building is what most visiotors would associate with taronga.

On hertitage, think about taronga, most heritage features are is a small general vacinity, from the clock, to spider monkeys, to pools, stairs and ele temple, as well as aivaries, most are all in the same area, and can be used as a central area to follow the rest of the zoo. You enter the centre of the zoo as it was 70 years ago, then you explore from the centre a 21st century view of animals in zoos. I think it would be very sepcieal, higlighted by the side-by-side veiwing of the old and new elephant temples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top