Zoo Designers Make Their Case

Often on ZooChat I am amazed at the extent to which generally good-natured folks stick up for their hometown zoo. I can remember reviewing Toronto Zoo in 2008 and I've never had so many angry comments because I personally did not think the zoo was the greatest on the planet. There is a youngster from Cincinnati on this forum who thinks that his/her local zoo is the greatest facility of all-time, and numerous other people who don't want to look beyond their local borders. I know someone who does not post very often but is obsessed with Central Park Zoo and believes that it is brilliant. Sheesh!

My local zoo (Greater Vancouver) is pretty disappointing and I can admit it. My birthplace zoo (Edmonton Valley) has been crap for decades and I have no shame in declaring parts of it terrible. I suppose by default my "home" zoo is Woodland Park in Seattle (a 5 hour round-trip journey away from my home) and I think ranking it in my top 10 is not a great stretch as it has won many exhibit awards and most habitats there are of a relatively high standard.

The key is to visit many zoos and then judge from that learned perspective. I could go on all day detailing how folks go out on a limb and spout superlatives about their local zoo. Once I read on ZooChat that Auckland Zoo was one of the greatest small zoos in the world, yet at the time the poster had never left New Zealand! There are many Aussies that believe either Taronga or Melbourne are the greatest zoo on the planet, and while I visited both in 2007 and they are indeed excellent the bottom line is that Australian zoos are extremely limited as to what species they can import into the country and that makes them all somewhat similar.

Unless you live in San Diego, New York, Omaha, Berlin, Vienna, Leipzig, Prague, Rotterdam, Arnhem, Zurich or Singapore then please don't declare your local zoo to be the best in the world.

All in good fun folks!:)
 
Too right you are Snowleopard. We find comfort in home and can't admit other can or possibly are better. I myself am in an odd position as I have no home zoo any more. It's much more interesting to sit on the outside and look in,and observe the behaviors of others. Especially when you've spent so much time on the inside.
 
Birmingham is far from ever being the best in the world. But its just weird that is has got no praise from anyone over Trails. When generally great Zoo's including one you listed in San Diego have done some disappointing things with Elephants to say the least.

Its just weird to see a true underdog like Birmingham do something right and it just be ignored by the Zoochat and Zoo Communities at large.
 
What snowleopard says is true. Its all familiarity. If you do not know anything else of course you are going to think yours is the greatest. Having visited a number of zoos the past couple of years I can clearly see the deficiencies and what my zoo could do to improve, but at the same time it is a matter of opinion.
 
cubsmaster said:
Birmingham Barons, Double-A Affiliate of the Chicago White Sox
Click to expand...

Or you could just go to Chicago which has the real Chicago white sox and the cubs, bears ,blackhawks, bulls and fire! They also have a top 3 aquarium in Shedd and two good zoos in Lincoln Park and Brookfield!
 
TropicWorld54 said:
Or you could just go to Chicago which has the real Chicago white sox and the cubs, bears ,blackhawks, bulls and fire! They also have a top 3 aquarium in Shedd and two good zoos in Lincoln Park and Brookfield!
Click to expand...

I know I just wanted to lighten the conversation, anyway I'm from the Chicago area so I know what we have.
 
To show why many people would go to Dallas where GOTS is, they have a good zoo there, what seems to be a good aquarium with many unique rarities, the Dallas Stars, Dallas Mavericks, and in nearby Arlington are the Texas Rangers and the... Dallas Cowboys (ughhh).:D
 
snowleopard said:
The key is to visit many zoos and then judge from that learned perspective. I could go on all day detailing how folks go out on a limb and spout superlatives about their local zoo. Once I read on ZooChat that Auckland Zoo was one of the greatest small zoos in the world, yet at the time the poster had never left New Zealand! There are many Aussies that believe either Taronga or Melbourne are the greatest zoo on the planet, and while I visited both in 2007 and they are indeed excellent the bottom line is that Australian zoos are extremely limited as to what species they can import into the country and that makes them all somewhat similar.

Unless you live in San Diego, New York, Omaha, Berlin, Vienna, Leipzig, Prague, Rotterdam, Arnhem, Zurich or Singapore then please don't declare your local zoo to be the best in the world.

All in good fun folks!:)
Click to expand...

you missed Auckland off your list...

Of course, this does depend on how you class a zoo as good, and I stand by my statement (I guess you mean me:D although I had visited several Aussie zoos at that time) that Auckland is the best small zoo I have ever visited. It certainly has the most consistently excellent enclosures, cf. Zurich, Berlins, Vienna, Liepzig, Prague & Singapore, which all have some rather embarrassing exhibits to say the least. I certainly agree that species-wise Australasian zoos are limited, and so cannot "win" if species number is most important.

But yes, staunchly backing your local zoo no matter what is wrong, and I am happy to admit Auckland's faults (which I may have to do sooner rather than later...). Perhaps some people percieve an attack on "their" zoo as an attack on themselves.
 
Thanks Zooplantman for sharing our video. We just released a companion piece to the video you shared, and we posted our very first ZooChat thread with the link to both videos.

We chose to film at the Denver, Dallas, and Philadelphia Zoos because those exhibits are recent examples of the design principles that guide our firm. We believe all of our projects exemplify our philosophy in creative and innovative ways, but we did need to narrow it down to three because of time and budget reasons. In the future, we intend to continue exploring the use of video of various client projects to further exemplify our commitment to evolutionary thinking in habitat design.
 
I think its quite funny that we are creating terminology ('activity based design') for something that should just be considered good exhibit design. Basing an exhibit on an animal's natural behavior and giving it choice is a basic, fundamental step of any new exhibit. I've never been involved in an exhibit design that doesnt start with...'Okay, what does this animal like to do?' And in some places, we have the space and budget to create multiple habitats. Its often a requirement from the zoo for basic husbandry...ie we need three yards because we may have multiple social groups and we may need to separate our males from females. Great marketing, but this is not (r)evolutionary. No offense to CLR...I'm a huge fan and peer. Much love and respect.

But, I challenge all designers to continue to think beyond...what is the next real revolution in design? Really? For me, the challenge is always...how are we CONNECTING visitor to animal? How are we getting to the excitement, love and desire for activism? Animals behaving like animals is the bottom step. You must do that to get to step two...
 
designingzoos said:
I think its quite funny that we are creating terminology ('activity based design') for something that should just be considered good exhibit design. Basing an exhibit on an animal's natural behavior and giving it choice is a basic, fundamental step of any new exhibit. I've never been involved in an exhibit design that doesnt start with...'Okay, what does this animal like to do?' And in some places, we have the space and budget to create multiple habitats. Its often a requirement from the zoo for basic husbandry...ie we need three yards because we may have multiple social groups and we may need to separate our males from females. Great marketing, but this is not (r)evolutionary. No offense to CLR...I'm a huge fan and peer. Much love and respect.

But, I challenge all designers to continue to think beyond...what is the next real revolution in design? Really? For me, the challenge is always...how are we CONNECTING visitor to animal? How are we getting to the excitement, love and desire for activism? Animals behaving like animals is the bottom step. You must do that to get to step two...
Click to expand...

Most of the "connecting" that seems to be happening more and more in zoos involves animals NOT behaving like (wild) animals. The Jack Hanna school of "program animals" on leashes; birds or giraffes tamely accepting food from visitors; keeper training sessions etc. I'm not sure this is bad--people love it. But it is in fact stepping away from the ideal espoused a lot late in the last century of trying to create "wilderness-like" encounters with animals going about their natural business. People desperately want animals to interact with them, which is certainly not what animals in the wild are looking for. I sometimes wonder where this rather mixed messaging is leading us......
 
The interaction and "programs" are, I'm sure, great for the bottom line of the zoos, but I agree with reduakari. It wasn't until I really started to explore the wild places around where I lived that I began to see how short sighted most zoo exhibits are. I had a real awe in finding animals in the wild, something that has never happened in the zoo. Even something as simple as a rabbit or a bobcat are so much more impressive when found in a natural setting without human intervention.

A brief glimpse of something common is far more enjoyable and memorable than staring at something rare.
 
Right...I absolutely agree with both of your sentiments. However, you have to look at the expectation of the zoo-goer--who is our audience. If you take the same people out into the wild, they might get just as excited as you or I to see even a redtailed hawk, but once you are in the zoo setting, its 'we must be entertained.' In my head, I keep going back to the point that zoos are for people, not animals. If they were for animals, they'd be reserves without visitors. So, how do we reach the visitors. How do we get them to care about animals at all? And there are as many answers to this as there are types of visitors. I wish there was a magic "this is the answer!" blanket way to design exhibits to get everyone excited! The key is offering a range of experiences so that everyone can find at least ONE thing that gets them excited and motivated to love wildlife--and protect those "untouched" places. And yes zoos have to make money. If they didnt, they couldnt contribute to conservation or continue to evolve and improve.
 
I completely understand the sentiment of trying to "connect" with the guest. I worked closely with the guests in one of the exhibits in the video for some time. Ultimately, connecting with the guest fails if the guest has no initial interest. In fact, some of the "interpretives" in the exhibit had quite negative affects on the guests and encouraged poor behavior.

As you say, there is no magic cure-all, but if we think that zoos are just for the people, then our philosophy is misguided and wrong. You won't have any audience if you have no product to display. The higher quality product, the bigger the audience.
 
I do agree with much of what was said, and I feel reduakari made an important point.

When I first heard of (and later saw) a public giraffe feeding exhibit perhaps ten years ago I was struck by how much it felt like throwing bread at ducks on a pond. Giraffes ambling over, a dozen at once, to beg for biscuits was kind of a thrill but it did nothing to instill love of-- or commitment to -- wildlife and wild places in anyone. We have gotten better and better in getting our visitors excited to be at the zoo (which isn't easy and not that many years ago we were losing our audience I believe), but at what cost?

designingzoos challenge still stands
I challenge all designers to continue to think beyond...what is the next real revolution in design?
Click to expand...
It is not turning zoos into circuses (again). We must develop new ways to make the zoo experience compelling but authentic. At some level the public is starving for authenticity, for some "real" experience. Slipping lettuce to a giraffe always satisfies toddlers. Parents take pictures... and they are focused on the kids not on the plight of giraffes.
It satisfies other visitors for a minute or two. But no more, and no more deeply than a stop at the Dipping Dots. It does little for wildlife or conservation.
That was the accomplishment of Congo Gorilla Forest 13 years ago. And we haven't taken a real step forward since. In fact, we have rarely recreated that step.

In the past fifteen years zoos have largely stepped backwards, not forwards. The exhibits in the video are certainly an effort to go forward. Glacier Run is another. There are more. They are as yet not as ambitious as they need to be to succeed, IMO. One thing Congo Gorilla Forest had was ambition (and of course the other was a huge war chest! :D ) In the past five years very few exhibits (and zoos) have had the funding needed to make any leap forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top