What are some overrated exhibit complexs?

[JVM]

I stand corrected. Tropic World is indeed overrated, apparently.

I am absolutely begging on my knees for Brookfield to demolish that building completely, leave nothing left, and build their new primate habitats in other parts of the zoo. Turn that empty mall into another event space or something. It was never revolutionary when it opened when better rainforest buildings around the country predate it, the whole thing is an embarrassment and a disgrace on the zoo.

 

[birdsandbats]

Regarding Tropic World, I think it is safe to say it was underrated, and is now overrated. Until even a few years ago, Tropic World was a superb primate house (housing a few non-primate species as well) with bad Great Ape exhibits being minor blemishes on what was otherwise a great house. It seems people finally acknowledge this now, when the great apes are about the only thing left in the building. With most of the species gone, I think the "Tragic World" nickname is sadly fair.

 

[TinoPup]

I was very much unimpressed by the Big Cat Falls at Philadelphia Zoo. I've seen a lot of praise for those exhibits, and I know it won an AZA exhibit award, but to me the exhibits seemed too small for the larger carnivores, especially the lions. I also felt that the Zoo360 Trails for the most part were an eye sore, maybe it's just that I didn't see any animals using them, but to me it seemed like a good idea and flawed eexecution. One thing I was impressed with at Philadelphia Zoo, however, was the Reptile House.

The lions have one of the largest spaces? It's a decent size for the two cats it holds, and is bigger than what they had. The animals also rotate. I have no idea how you can think that about zoo360. I don't think I've had a single visit where I haven't seen cats using it (or primates; apes can be iffy and I've never seen the otters use theirs).

 

[15399]

The lions have one of the largest spaces? It's a decent size for the two cats it holds, and is bigger than what they had. The animals also rotate. I have no idea how you can think that about zoo360. I don't think I've had a single visit where I haven't seen cats using it (or primates; apes can be iffy and I've never seen the otters use theirs).

I've only visited once, and didn't see anything use Zoo 360. Maybe it was just an off-day, but I may have thought differently had I saw animals in them. To be fair, a lot of my criticism of Zoo 360 is strictly aesthetic- I'm all for giving animals more space, and it seems like a cool concept, but I just found the Zoo 360 tubes to not be aesthetically pleasing, something which, while secondary to animal welfare, should still be a consideration when designing zoo exhibits.
As for the lions, maybe this was just due to the rotation, but the habitat did not seem large at all on my visit. However, and I say this as a big fan of rotational exhibits, rotations shouldn't be designed to make smaller exhibits more acceptable- each exhibit in the rotation should still be a respectable size for the inhabitants, and in the case of Big Cat Falls I felt a few weren't large enough. Some of the Big Cat Falls exhibits also, and this may be the fault of the rotation, did not do justice to the arboreal nature of inhabitants. One of the two amur leopard habitats, for instance, had very little in terms of climbing structures, and would've been better suited for a terrestrial cat species (lion or tiger). If the zoo wishes to rotate their cats, each of the habitats should have ample climbing opportunities for the amur and snow leopards, which both benefit greatly from having these options. I acknowledge these habitats may be substantially larger than their old exhibits, but that does more to show the inexcusably low quality of the old habitats than it does to show the state of the current exhibits. In my opinion, if they wanted to turn that area into a better exhibit, make a better lion exhibit over near the other African animals, and turn Big Cat Falls into an Asian Carnivores area, as the exhibits seemed decently sized (not great, but decent) for the snow leopards and amur leopards, and would be great for red pandas and pallas' cats.

 

[pachyderm pro]

Tropic World really is an enigma in this discussion, as it's so heavily debated in the zoo community that it really isn't generally overrated or underrated. I think some are underestimating just how good the current accommodations for the gibbons, African monkeys and South American monkeys really are. They're not the most attractive sure, but for the animals it really doesn't matter. I can't think of many other exhibits allow these species to climb nearly 100 feet in the air and they still deliver a real wow factor for guests. There's no denying the great ape exhibits are very poor. The zoo has recognized this and by this time next year the zoo will be well into construction of an extremely ambitious outdoor extension of the building that will give new exhibits to great apes (plus the South American monkeys) which have potential to be world-class, especially when it comes to the gorillas. That's a problem that's actively being solved and once that project is complete there really shouldn't be any egregious flaws with the exhibitry of the building

In my opinion, Tropic Worlds biggest issue once the great apes get new exhibits is the sheer emptiness of the building. It was clearly designed the with the idea of having many different species together and as a result there are now these huge spaces that feel vacant with only a few species. I'm not advocating going back to the absurd species mixes once present here, but there have been other issues that have contributed to the emptiness. The marmoset islands have sat empty since the pandemic with only a single sloth still present, there are no more than two primate species per exhibit now - which really is overkill, the free-flight birds are hardly seen, and with the South American monkeys soon being outside for the half the year that whole room is going to be very dead in the summer. This is definitely something I hope to see improved upon alongside the upcoming expansion.

 

[15399]

In my opinion, Tropic Worlds biggest issue once the great apes get new exhibits is the sheer emptiness of the building. It was clearly designed the with the idea of having many different species together and as a result there are now these huge spaces that feel vacant with only a few species. I'm not advocating going back to the absurd species mixes once present here, but there have been other issues that have contributed to the emptiness. The marmoset islands have sat empty since the pandemic with only a single sloth still present, there are no more than two primate species per exhibit now - which really is overkill, the free-flight birds are hardly seen, and with the South American monkeys soon being outside for the half the year that whole room is going to be very dead in the summer. This is definitely something I hope to see improved upon alongside the upcoming expansion.

What are some examples of "absurd" mixes in Tropic World? To the best of my knowledge, none of the species mixes I'm aware of that were in this building seem absurd on paper, was it absurd due to space requirements/needs not being met, or were they absurd due to other reasons (aggression, predation, theming, etc.?)

 

[ZooElephantMan]

As someone who has never been to Brookfield, Tropic World sounds like a fascinating exhibit that I would love to see, even if it is outdated. All the mixed opinions about the enormous building just make it sound more and more intriguing.

 

[pachyderm pro]

What are some examples of "absurd" mixes in Tropic World? To the best of my knowledge, none of the species mixes I'm aware of that were in this building seem absurd on paper, was it absurd due to space requirements/needs not being met, or were they absurd due to other reasons (aggression, predation, theming, etc.?)

The exhibits were stocked with species that didn't cohabitate well. I can think of several examples: king vultures were kept free-flight in the South American room which led to aggression between them and the monkeys, gibbons (which notoriously don't mix well with any primate besides orangutans) were kept with both spectacled langurs and a macaque species which didn't bode well for any species involved, and there was even a case of hybridization between a mandrill and sooty mangabey. The exhibits were also simply too overstocked. To put it in perspective, when it first opened the main African exhibit held six species (not counting the free-flight birds), now it only holds two.

 

[15399]

I think we can really break down the idea of overrated exhibits into two categories. The first category is exhibits in which the quality of care and/or animal welfare are debated- such as the Tropic World Great Ape habitats being discussed. The second category is exhibits that are overrated due to visitor needs/expectations not being met, such as the Arctic Ring of Life example from @birdsandbats. I'd like to propose another exhibit complex that fits solidly in this second category: Kilimanjaro Safaris at Disney's Animal Kingdom. While I am not denying that the exhibits are a great size and provide excellent homes for the elephants, giraffes, rhinos, hippos, and other ungulates, there are a few places I feel this exhibit falls short. Number one is the limited time allowed to view the animals. I know this is a main criticism brought up on this site before, and I think it's extremely valid. Especially with having to wait an hour plus to ride this ride, it's disappointing when such short amounts of time are allowed at some of the exhibit space- sometimes not even stopping. Furthermore, there's definitely a lot of luck into how good your visibility is. For example, if a certain species is best viewed from the left side of the truck, if you're seated on the right side of the truck it may be difficult to get a decent view of the animal. It'd be great if there were opportunities to see these animals for a more prolonged period of time, especially for some of the more unique opportunities. This especially feels like a shame when discussing the hippos. Disney's Animal Kingdom does perhaps the best job of any US zoo in hippo management- by keeping them in such a large bloat and having both land and water areas of a decent size. It'd be really great to be able to see this hippo bloat for a longer amount of time, as it'd be really interesting to observe the behaviors and interactions of these animals as they'd be found in the wild- something few other zoos are able to replicate. However, the safari ride allows less than a minute to see the hippos, and the hippo exhibit on Gorilla Falls Exploration Trail is completely separate from the Kilimanjaro Safaris habitat- so doesn't allow the same opportunity to see a large bloat of hippos. That's not even mentioning the species only visible from the Safaris- which include everything from ABC crowd-pleasers (African Elephant, African Lion, etc.) to ungulates (sable antelope, bongo, springbok, etc.) and even some birds and primates (saddlebill stork, pink-backed pelican, mandrill). Even if the zoo wanted to leave a few of these exhibits as safari ride exclusive, it'd be nice to see a few opportunities to see some of the habitats by foot. Furthermore, to a lot of people the ride may not be enjoyable due to how bumpy it is, and if somebody wanted to see certain animals, but couldn't/didn't want to ride due to motion sickness, etc. it'd be a real shame. So, in essence, this is an exhibit that, while great for the animals, is less enjoyable for guests, or at least those who are more zoo-oriented.

 

[Great Argus]

I'd like to propose another exhibit complex that fits solidly in this second category: Kilimanjaro Safaris at Disney's Animal Kingdom. While I am not denying that the exhibits are a great size and provide excellent homes for the elephants, giraffes, rhinos, hippos, and other ungulates, there are a few places I feel this exhibit falls short. Number one is the limited time allowed to view the animals. I know this is a main criticism brought up on this site before, and I think it's extremely valid. Especially with having to wait an hour plus to ride this ride, it's disappointing when such short amounts of time are allowed at some of the exhibit space- sometimes not even stopping. Furthermore, there's definitely a lot of luck into how good your visibility is. For example, if a certain species is best viewed from the left side of the truck, if you're seated on the right side of the truck it may be difficult to get a decent view of the animal. It'd be great if there were opportunities to see these animals for a more prolonged period of time, especially for some of the more unique opportunities

Reminds me of the tram at SDZSP...

 

[ZooElephantMan]

I think we can really break down the idea of overrated exhibits into two categories. The first category is exhibits in which the quality of care and/or animal welfare are debated- such as the Tropic World Great Ape habitats being discussed. The second category is exhibits that are overrated due to visitor needs/expectations not being met, such as the Arctic Ring of Life example from @birdsandbats. I'd like to propose another exhibit complex that fits solidly in this second category: Kilimanjaro Safaris at Disney's Animal Kingdom. While I am not denying that the exhibits are a great size and provide excellent homes for the elephants, giraffes, rhinos, hippos, and other ungulates, there are a few places I feel this exhibit falls short. Number one is the limited time allowed to view the animals. I know this is a main criticism brought up on this site before, and I think it's extremely valid. Especially with having to wait an hour plus to ride this ride, it's disappointing when such short amounts of time are allowed at some of the exhibit space- sometimes not even stopping. Furthermore, there's definitely a lot of luck into how good your visibility is. For example, if a certain species is best viewed from the left side of the truck, if you're seated on the right side of the truck it may be difficult to get a decent view of the animal. It'd be great if there were opportunities to see these animals for a more prolonged period of time, especially for some of the more unique opportunities. This especially feels like a shame when discussing the hippos. Disney's Animal Kingdom does perhaps the best job of any US zoo in hippo management- by keeping them in such a large bloat and having both land and water areas of a decent size. It'd be really great to be able to see this hippo bloat for a longer amount of time, as it'd be really interesting to observe the behaviors and interactions of these animals as they'd be found in the wild- something few other zoos are able to replicate. However, the safari ride allows less than a minute to see the hippos, and the hippo exhibit on Gorilla Falls Exploration Trail is completely separate from the Kilimanjaro Safaris habitat- so doesn't allow the same opportunity to see a large bloat of hippos. That's not even mentioning the species only visible from the Safaris- which include everything from ABC crowd-pleasers (African Elephant, African Lion, etc.) to ungulates (sable antelope, bongo, springbok, etc.) and even some birds and primates (saddlebill stork, pink-backed pelican, mandrill). Even if the zoo wanted to leave a few of these exhibits as safari ride exclusive, it'd be nice to see a few opportunities to see some of the habitats by foot. Furthermore, to a lot of people the ride may not be enjoyable due to how bumpy it is, and if somebody wanted to see certain animals, but couldn't/didn't want to ride due to motion sickness, etc. it'd be a real shame. So, in essence, this is an exhibit that, while great for the animals, is less enjoyable for guests, or at least those who are more zoo-oriented.

Reminds me of the tram at SDZSP...

This is probably an issue shared with many zoo rides. The Wild Asia Monorail at the Bronx Zoo is yet another example of a ride through a series of spectacular exhibits, with a great mixture of rare and ABC species. But most of these exhibits are only seen for very short time periods.

 

[TinoPup]

I've only visited once, and didn't see anything use Zoo 360. Maybe it was just an off-day, but I may have thought differently had I saw animals in them. To be fair, a lot of my criticism of Zoo 360 is strictly aesthetic- I'm all for giving animals more space, and it seems like a cool concept, but I just found the Zoo 360 tubes to not be aesthetically pleasing, something which, while secondary to animal welfare, should still be a consideration when designing zoo exhibits.
As for the lions, maybe this was just due to the rotation, but the habitat did not seem large at all on my visit. However, and I say this as a big fan of rotational exhibits, rotations shouldn't be designed to make smaller exhibits more acceptable- each exhibit in the rotation should still be a respectable size for the inhabitants, and in the case of Big Cat Falls I felt a few weren't large enough. Some of the Big Cat Falls exhibits also, and this may be the fault of the rotation, did not do justice to the arboreal nature of inhabitants. One of the two amur leopard habitats, for instance, had very little in terms of climbing structures, and would've been better suited for a terrestrial cat species (lion or tiger). If the zoo wishes to rotate their cats, each of the habitats should have ample climbing opportunities for the amur and snow leopards, which both benefit greatly from having these options. I acknowledge these habitats may be substantially larger than their old exhibits, but that does more to show the inexcusably low quality of the old habitats than it does to show the state of the current exhibits. In my opinion, if they wanted to turn that area into a better exhibit, make a better lion exhibit over near the other African animals, and turn Big Cat Falls into an Asian Carnivores area, as the exhibits seemed decently sized (not great, but decent) for the snow leopards and amur leopards, and would be great for red pandas and pallas' cats.

I'm a member of Philly Zoo. I don't go there frequently, but more than I go anywhere else. If you didn't see any, it was an extremely off day. There's always primates out, but sometimes you have to look harder to notice them, or they're in sections that aren't easily viewable by the public. The red pandas like to nap just out of sight in their trails. It's amazing watching gibbons or lemurs running and swinging for such a long stretch, seeing a tiger stalk a gorilla from under it, listening to the little sounds meerkats make when they're digging in the pit while one is stationed in the end tower as a watcher. The goats also have a section, and tend to be separated so that some are on it.

For the rest, I don't like to delve into speculation about things that aren't going to happen.

 

[JVM]

For anyone else curious about Tropic World, there's a good thread specifically about how far it has fallen and whether it can be rehabilitated.

Tropic World really is an enigma in this discussion, as it's so heavily debated in the zoo community that it really isn't generally overrated or underrated. I think some are underestimating just how good the current accommodations for the gibbons, African monkeys and South American monkeys really are. They're not the most attractive sure, but for the animals it really doesn't matter. I can't think of many other exhibits allow these species to climb nearly 100 feet in the air and they still deliver a real wow factor for guests. There's no denying the great ape exhibits are very poor. The zoo has recognized this and by this time next year the zoo will be well into construction of an extremely ambitious outdoor extension of the building that will give new exhibits to great apes (plus the South American monkeys) which have potential to be world-class, especially when it comes to the gorillas. That's a problem that's actively being solved and once that project is complete there really shouldn't be any egregious flaws with the exhibitry of the building

In my opinion, Tropic Worlds biggest issue once the great apes get new exhibits is the sheer emptiness of the building. It was clearly designed the with the idea of having many different species together and as a result there are now these huge spaces that feel vacant with only a few species. I'm not advocating going back to the absurd species mixes once present here, but there have been other issues that have contributed to the emptiness. The marmoset islands have sat empty since the pandemic with only a single sloth still present, there are no more than two primate species per exhibit now - which really is overkill, the free-flight birds are hardly seen, and with the South American monkeys soon being outside for the half the year that whole room is going to be very dead in the summer. This is definitely something I hope to see improved upon alongside the upcoming expansion.

I personally have been assuming that they are letting the building empty out over time so they can reset it once the apes are moved. We don't know how many changes will be made to the existing structure yet, most of the information is about the new areas. Perhaps the remaining, dwindling species will need to be moved out as well at a later date before construction can begin.

Adding even a world-class new gorilla exhibit to the end of the building isn't going to save a football field and a half of concrete, gunite, metal and epoxy though.

 

[Pleistocene891]

Reminds me of the tram at SDZSP...

I strongly disagree with this. The tram ride allows you to see the animals for quite some time since the rides are an hour long and you can get quite close to the animals. I might have been extremely lucky, but in my 2019 trip an Indian Rhino came up to our cart and I was able to feed it.

 

[IndianRhino]

I strongly disagree with this. The tram ride allows you to see the animals for quite some time since the rides are an hour long and you can get quite close to the animals. I might have been extremely lucky, but in my 2019 trip an Indian Rhino came up to our cart and I was able to feed it.

It sounds like you're talking about the paid Cart/Caravan Safaris, those are generally much better than the free African tram (that comes with admission), that @Great Argus is talking about, in terms of getting enough time and getting up close with the animals.

 

[Great Argus]

I strongly disagree with this. The tram ride allows you to see the animals for quite some time since the rides are an hour long and you can get quite close to the animals. I might have been extremely lucky, but in my 2019 trip an Indian Rhino came up to our cart and I was able to feed it.

Yeah you're talking about the extra cost caravan safaris. The tram does not enter the Asian fields and rather stops and goes depending on where animals are and how close they are. Most of the animals aren't particularly close, and you've gotta be really aware if you're looking for species because they won't mention everything.

 

[CMTM]

Adding even a world-class new gorilla exhibit to the end of the building isn't going to save a football field and a half of concrete, gunite, metal and epoxy though.

Agreed. I saw TropicWorld in 2014, I recall seeing quite a few non primates including a pygmy hippo and an anteater. I thought it was neat to see the species mixed together and I agree that the South American monkeys and gibbons looked very comfortable. The Orangs and Gorillas (save for the separated silverback who barely looked conscious) all looked alright as well, I had been to Cleveland the day before and after seeing the Orangutan tank and the primate, cat, and aquatic building I think I would've been impressed with just about anything though as far as great ape enclosures go.

What really sticks out to my memory is not the animals though, its the sheer amount of bland beige concrete with random planters spread across it. I've been lucky enough to see a tropical rainforest in person, I've also seem many exhibits that I feel "get it right" and feel like a real piece of the tropics. Tropicworld did not look remotely naturalistic. Just a glorified grotto with a roof over it.

I want to stress that I loved Brookfield (and Cleveland) overall.

 

[SwampDonkey]

If I may throw my hat into this ring, I think the Savanna habitat at the Phoenix Zoo is supremely boring. Yes, it's big and stunning, but it just feels so empty these days. Most of the animals in this habitat are birds (crowned cranes, vultures, guinea fowl, ostriches), while the only mammal species are Masai Giraffes and Thompson's Gazelles. There were Elands and Watusi, who made the habitat feel more busy and alive, but they're long gone now.
I wouldn't mind all of this if not for the fact that the giraffes (who are the main stars of this habitat) like to hang out near the back, and guess what? The back is inaccessible at the moment! I've legit gotten better views of the giraffes from window seats on airplanes flying over the zoo than from actually being at the zoo.

I totally agree that it could use some more hoofstock species, as it is it is a bit sparse for a savannah. The two times I went this year the were actually by the tower, I guess we got lucky.

 

[15399]

The Orangs and Gorillas (save for the separated silverback who barely looked conscious) all looked alright as well, I had been to Cleveland the day before and after seeing the Orangutan tank and the primate, cat, and aquatic building I think I would've been impressed with just about anything though as far as great ape enclosures go.

Calling the exhibit at Cleveland an orangutan "tank" is, in my opinion, an unfair analysis of their orangutan exhibit, which I felt was actually a really solid exhibit on my recent visit. Sure, having outdoor access would be nice, but by all other metrics, the orangutan exhibit at Cleveland meets or exceeds the standards for orangutan exhibits. Most notably, I noticed on my visit that four of the five orangutans were actually above the ground, utilizing the various ropes and climbing opportunities in the exhibit. This alone is huge, as way too often zoos have designed primarily horizontal orangutan exhibit, in which the animals don't have that opportunity to exhibit natural climbing behavior. I'd actually call Cleveland one of the better orangutan exhibits I've seen, with the utilization of climbing opportunities being a big part of this. As for Primates, Cats, and Aquatics, I actually felt it was a really nice exhibit, gorillas aside. The gorilla area in PCAT was certainly poor, but a lot of the other exhibits have become much better homes for some of the inhabitants, through choosing smaller primate species and combining multiple habitats into larger ones. Sure, the exhibits are far from naturalistic, but naturalism as the gold standard aesthetic is often contrary to what's best for the animals. Rather, what needs to be achieved is naturalism as a behavior- and the Cleveland exhibits are able to achieve this quite nicely (and will be able to do an even better job of it once the gorillas move to the Rain Forest expansion).

 

[Zooplantman]

Calling the exhibit at Cleveland an orangutan "tank" is, in my opinion, an unfair analysis of their orangutan exhibit, which I felt was actually a really solid exhibit on my recent visit. Sure, having outdoor access would be nice, but by all other metrics, the orangutan exhibit at Cleveland meets or exceeds the standards for orangutan exhibits. Most notably, I noticed on my visit that four of the five orangutans were actually above the ground, utilizing the various ropes and climbing opportunities in the exhibit. This alone is huge, as way too often zoos have designed primarily horizontal orangutan exhibit, in which the animals don't have that opportunity to exhibit natural climbing behavior. I'd actually call Cleveland one of the better orangutan exhibits I've seen, with the utilization of climbing opportunities being a big part of this. As for Primates, Cats, and Aquatics, I actually felt it was a really nice exhibit, gorillas aside. The gorilla area in PCAT was certainly poor, but a lot of the other exhibits have become much better homes for some of the inhabitants, through choosing smaller primate species and combining multiple habitats into larger ones. Sure, the exhibits are far from naturalistic, but naturalism as the gold standard aesthetic is often contrary to what's best for the animals. Rather, what needs to be achieved is naturalism as a behavior- and the Cleveland exhibits are able to achieve this quite nicely (and will be able to do an even better job of it once the gorillas move to the Rain Forest expansion).

Of course much of this will be moot in a very few years
https://www.clevelandzoosociety.org/support-us/primate-forest