Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Batto said:
As soon as it goes against the wellbeing and welfare of the animals kept within the exhibit, said "beauty" goes out of the window
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Stuff like Kilimanjaro Safaris is a prime example, and even stuff like Wild Arctic, if done on a grander scale and with the animal's welfare in mind would be ideal. (Like I said - the theming's good, astronomical chance I design an actual zoo, I would definitely have proper outdoor access in mind as the indoor space would act as rotational space + a "cool" space for polar bears, no pun intended.)

Batto said:
Sounds more like a hot mess to me...
Click to expand...
*laughs in WCS and Antwerpen* (I would say Lincoln Park as well if and when I visit, same with Shedd)
 
Last edited:
StoppableSan said:
The ideal "zoo" to me would highlight as many schools of design as possible...

Pretty much any exhibit in Philly showcases this
Click to expand...

I disagree here. First of all, I think it is good for a zoo to have a cohesive personal brand. Why is this zoo different from all other zoos? What is this zoo's unique style? What is the unique flavor that ties all of this zoo's exhibits together? A zoo that is a mix of a thousand different brands will end up having a less distinct personality.

Second of all, I think the Philadelphia Zoo actually does do a great job of having a unique and consistent flavor. In my opinion, the Philadelphia Zoo has at least two flavors that are spread throughout the majority of the park: the exhibits are mostly organized by taxonomy instead of by zoogeography, and many of the exhibits are unimmersive and include Zoo360 trails as key design features. In my opinion these (relatively) consistent design features make the Philadelphia Zoo feel unique, and some of the most disappointing parts of the zoo are also the few parts where they stray from this taxonomic + Zoo360 design pattern (ie the African section).
 
birdsandbats said:
Lincoln Park I could see, but Shedd feels like a very consistent (consistently amazing) experience.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's inconsistent at all - I'm saying it's a good blend of historical architecture and modern exhibitry. I like how the seemingly divergent styles coalesce in a truly unique and memorable way, and I'd love the opportunity to see it in person rather than just on Streetview.
 
I think the most interesting example at the Shedd is how Amazon Rising is built off the major galleries (over one of the older ones of the group) all of which still feel somewhat older in design, and Amazon Rising following a similar overall plan allows it to feel at home alongside them, yet it has much stronger theming overall, allowing it to feel really modern, marrying both the older and newer style of aquarium exhibitry in a really interesting way. I could see how someone could see it as inconsistent or as consistent based on that. It's part of why I find it such a highlight of an exhibit.
 
IMO, zoo exhibits have to be more than just displaying the animal. It's gotta be topographically interesting.

It's fine if a few exhibits are fairly basic in layout but there should be some that deviate a little. For example, when I was in Lisbon Zoo this March, many of the exhibits were just boring. Many of them were just "here's a cage/pen with some animals in it, next."
 
tigris115 said:
IMO, zoo exhibits have to be more than just displaying the animal. It's gotta be topographically interesting.

It's fine if a few exhibits are fairly basic in layout but there should be some that deviate a little. For example, when I was in Lisbon Zoo this March, many of the exhibits were just boring. Many of them were just "here's a cage/pen with some animals in it, next."
Click to expand...
I think this can swing the other way though, in that sometimes the most basic of exhibits can be the best way to show an animal, much more so than over-egging it stylistically or in general form.

For example, the Whipsnade logic of "here is a field with some animals in it" gives such good views of the animals that any boredom of looking at a grass field with some dead trees in it is negated by the animals themselves. I think it depends on the animal generally - a tiger in a grass paddock doesn't quite evoke interest like a cheetah in one, and vice versa with a woodland.

I agree with plain cages though. Even if certain smaller animals can still be morally kept in them, they are just dull. That was my one issue with Berlin's bird house.
 
cerperal said:
I think this can swing the other way though, in that sometimes the most basic of exhibits can be the best way to show an animal, much more so than over-egging it stylistically or in general form.

For example, the Whipsnade logic of "here is a field with some animals in it" gives such good views of the animals that any boredom of looking at a grass field with some dead trees in it is negated by the animals themselves. I think it depends on the animal generally - a tiger in a grass paddock doesn't quite evoke interest like a cheetah in one, and vice versa with a woodland.

I agree with plain cages though. Even if certain smaller animals can still be morally kept in them, they are just dull. That was my one issue with Berlin's bird house.
Click to expand...
Thx. That does put things into perspective. I do think some animals are fine with plain enclosures such as hoofstock that like open spaces.

I'll also admit I can be kinda overly artsy with things
 
Great Argus said:
Some species tend to make their enclosure plain of their own accord too - elephants and many of the pig family are often pretty rough on any plants trying to hang on.
Click to expand...
Even then, I feel you can still make the experience interesting with how the path flows and what parts of the exhibit are viewable
 
I was personally very disappointed in the Burger's zoo in the Netherlands. I expected a lot more. I went with a friend and his opinion is very similar to mine. It is true that it is a good zoo, but I have visited many others that I have liked and impressed much more.
 
We all have our own opinions, and some are more popular than others. But I figured it wouldn't hurt to make a thread where we could all share our unpopular opinions. I'll start.

I think the cheetah project in India has more to do with commercializing India's wildlife than actual conservation. Otherwise, Asiatic Lions would've been prioritized and let's face it, the federal government has the ability to force Gujurat to stop confining them to the state.

Stories of tigers taking down fully-grown Indian rhinos are complete nonsense. (At least from my experience that's an unpopular opinion).

What are some of your unpopular opinions?
 
Following on from @Arizona Docent post (which I agree with) on the subject of unpopular for Zoochaters possibly. Animals that are not on the lowest level of endangered should not be kept in Zoos and this extends to Giant Pandas. The Giant Panda is the biggest thief of the WWF.
 
Pootle said:
Following on from @Arizona Docent post (which I agree with) on the subject of unpopular for Zoochaters possibly. Animals that are not on the lowest level of endangered should not be kept in Zoos and this extends to Giant Pandas. The Giant Panda is the biggest thief of the WWF.
Click to expand...
What if a least concern or data deficient animal that doesn’t exist in captivity or on its way to be phased out “suddenly” gets declared as endangered or worse?
 
Pootle said:
Following on from @Arizona Docent post (which I agree with) on the subject of unpopular for Zoochaters possibly. Animals that are not on the lowest level of endangered should not be kept in Zoos and this extends to Giant Pandas. The Giant Panda is the biggest thief of the WWF.
Click to expand...
Just because an animal is secure now doesn't mean it always will be. It would seem ridiculous to try and conserve the most common bird in North America, but look what ended up happening to the Passenger Pigeon.
 
PossumRoach said:
What if a least concern or data deficient animal that doesn’t exist in captivity or on its way to be phased out “suddenly” gets declared as endangered or worse?
Click to expand...

If its status changes and captive breeding can help then do zoo it - simple!

And who assesses and agrees status changes - very political and financial.
 
birdsandbats said:
Just because an animal is secure now doesn't mean it always will be. It would seem ridiculous to try and conserve the most common bird in North America, but look what ended up happening to the Passenger Pigeon.
Click to expand...

Obvious. I shall add if not 'obvious' observe, think and react on an individual sp. basis...

:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top