ZooChat Cup Semi-final #1: Prague (1) vs Chester (5)

Miscellaneous mammals and primates

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
Yes. The exterior of the building isn't the point, and if anything the understated, utilitarian design only boosts the sense of wonder at what one finds inside. I had no difficulty seeing the bats in simulated moonlight, and whilst I concede being bopped on the nose by a bat isn't *every* visitor's cup of tea, being so was one of the highlights of my 2017 zoo-going. It's a triumph.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
Does Prague really have an Echidna?
Click to expand...
They have quite a few, even. I've always seen at least two on my visits in July 2016, February 2017 and August 2017, but they were always signed in at least one or two other exhibits as well. They're in the nocturnal portion of the night house, sharing enclosures with greater slow loris, ground cuscus and bettong. ;)

Also, exteriors of buildings are ALWAYS the point. What's the point of making something ugly and then hiding it behind foliage, if you could properly design it (with or without foliage) and not have to hide it?
 
Vision said:
Also, exteriors of buildings are ALWAYS the point. What's the point of making something ugly and then hiding it behind foliage, if you could properly design it (with or without foliage) and not have to hide it?
Click to expand...

But one of the things I loved about the Bat House was that they'd conjured an exceptional, unique exhibit out of very simple elements. It seems a tin shed, sure, but what's inside that tin shed is incredible. It's an exhibit any zoo in the world could do with minimal resources, but only Chester had the creativity to do it.
 
CGSwans said:
But one of the things I loved about the Bat House was that they'd conjured an exceptional, unique exhibit out of very simple elements. It seems a tin shed, sure, but what's inside that tin shed is incredible. It's an exhibit any zoo in the world could do with minimal resources, but only Chester had the creativity to do it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I've not visited and don't know what it looks like from the outside. Even with minimal resources it should always be possible to design a building instead of just building it, which is what I thought had happened from previous posts, but of course the contrast between indoors and out can be a part of that designing process!

PaleoMatt said:
I have a feeling this is one of those 'species-centric' rounds.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this... Shouldn't it be?
 
CGSwans said:
Chester has the single best exhibit for a 'miscellaneous mammal' in Europe, in the form of the bat house. It also has several primate exhibits that achieve, in stunning form, the one thing I railed about throughout my trip: the importance of bringing indoor exhibits up to a more-than-barely-functional display standard.

This is one where the greater depth of Prague's collection should not out-do the sheer brilliance and innovation of Chester's exhibitry.
Click to expand...

But then you're ignoring the sheer brilliance and innovation of Prague's exhibitry. I'm not ignoring Chester's, but I think that Prague is not too far behind on primates and at least on par with 'other mammals' as well as having a far greater diversity of species.

At Prague, that cliffside enclosure for Macaques is certainly sheer brilliance and innovation. Primates certainly aren't the focus of that area, but the fact is that there is a primate enclosure so it counts. The other primate enclosures are perfectly good, certainly above average by European-wide standards, but they don't quite come up to the standard of Chester's which I really like. Sooty has made some arguments against Chester's primate exhibits, but I really like them.

And the other thing at Prague is the whole 'Africa Up Close' complex with that rocky area outside. It's absolutely fantastic. Innovative and brilliant and aesthetically pleasing as well as holding a highly diverse range of species. I struggle to think of any other small mammal exhibit that keeps as much diversity as that without looking like a series of identical boxes, but I think Prague has managed. Some of the enclosures could be a bit larger, certainly, but they're not small.
 
LaughingDove said:
And the other thing at Prague is the whole 'Africa Up Close' complex with that rocky area outside. It's absolutely fantastic. Innovative and brilliant and aesthetically pleasing as well as holding a highly diverse range of species. I struggle to think of any other small mammal exhibit that keeps as much diversity as that without looking like a series of identical boxes, but I think Prague has managed. Some of the enclosures could be a bit larger, certainly, but they're not small.
Click to expand...

Outside the Africa rocks part works perfectly, but I am not so sure inside. Some of the jird enclosures are really tiny and most other enclosures are not as big as they should be, they are really on the small side for most species. The same goes for the Indonesian house, where the all indoors for Pig-tailed macaques is underwhelming as is the Orangutan indoor enclosure, which with all the fake "trees" leaves relatively little space for the Orangs. The enclosures in the night part of the Indonesia house are also quite small, especially for purely ground-living animals like the Echidna....

I am going for Chester here, as it at least has the standard of enclosures seems much better, also for the miscellaneous mammals. Prague is only outstanding in its collection, but not when it comes to the enclosures (except the Barbary macaques which I forgot). Most enclosures are fine, but many are either ugly or rather on the small side...
 
lintworm said:
Outside the Africa rocks part works perfectly, but I am not so sure inside. Some of the jird enclosures are really tiny and most other enclosures are not as big as they should be, they are really on the small side for most species. The same goes for the Indonesian house, where the all indoors for Pig-tailed macaques is underwhelming as is the Orangutan indoor enclosure, which with all the fake "trees" leaves relatively little space for the Orangs. The enclosures in the night part of the Indonesia house are also quite small, especially for purely ground-living animals like the Echidna....

I am going for Chester here, as it at least has the standard of enclosures seems much better, also for the miscellaneous mammals. Prague is only outstanding in its collection, but not when it comes to the enclosures (except the Barbary macaques which I forgot). Most enclosures are fine, but many are either ugly or rather on the small side...
Click to expand...

I don't remember thinking that most of the indoor enclosures for small mammals were any smaller than average for those species, except maybe the Bush Squirrel which I seem to remember thinking was a rather small enclosure for a squirrel.

However, they're certainly not above average for those species and it was a while ago now that I visited Prague so maybe they were indeed too small. What makes the house above average for that sort of hugely species diverse small mammal house imo is that they've managed to make it aesthetically pleasing and avoided monotonous rows of identical small enclosures. A quick google came up with this article, with a number of pictures, so anyone who's not visited Prague may want to have a look:
https://zoomoments.com/index.php/ar...fe/80-an-intriguing-african-nocturnal-exhibit

The Indonesian House on the other hand, is definitely an exhibit that I found underwhelming. Considering how impressive it looks from outside and how much potential there is, I felt that it was nothing special, apart from the rarities in the nocturnal corridor from a purely stamp-collecting perspective. The enclosures in that nocturnal corridor are rather small, and when I visited they held White-striped Dorcopsis and felt extremely small for that species, although I believe they are no longer held there and have moved off show.
 
I believe, that this match is not primarily one that is decided on which zoo is the better in this category, but rather what each one voting likes best in a broad sense.

At least it turned out to be that decision with me.

Many classical 'established' big bang (city)zoos like Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Cologne, London and or Edinburgh have each in their own way run into limitations within their own conceptual set up. Some have lost on room for bigger or newer enclosures, some have lost and are loosing on innovational building with oder despite regulation protection of historical buildings and monuments (Berlin and Cologne are certainly particularly burdened here), Munich and in parts Vienna seem to be strangely restraining themselves by their historical zoo philosophy and have in my eyes although being fantastic zoos lost their decades old fascination (here at least for me) for now. All these giants are being bested by smaller, newer and more innovative zoos.

I believe Prague had the proverbial 'fatal' luck to have been hit so hard by the floods in 2002 and 2013 which, once the demolitions were sorted out, gave it enormous leeway (and financing) to jump start developments that otherwise (again I believe) would have not come that easy and fast.

My vote went to Prague because of all the above, though, having seen the votes, this should be much closer. I admire and cherish all the good that Prague has developed out of worst case scenario after worst case scenario. If they only would do something about their polar bears I would not even feel bad voting against Chester.
 
SabineB said:
I believe, that this match is not primarily one that is decided on which zoo is the better in this category, but rather what each one voting likes best in a broad sense.

.
Click to expand...

Without drawing any conclusions about how people have voted - the golden rule of the game - that only the categories in question can be considered - is still in place. :)
 
CGSwans said:
Without drawing any conclusions about how people have voted - the golden rule of the game - that only the categories in question can be considered - is still in place. :)
Click to expand...

Off course!

Chester wins on primates, Prague wins on misc. mammals, both with I believe on even margins.

So, in order to decide, I broadened out my judgement on how do zoos got to where they are and this is totally subjective. I can only guess that I am not the only one. I went for Prague here.
 
I never got round to writing my thoughts on this, but as a kind of post-mortem:

Chester takes Primates, but it's closer than you might think for a category that is traditionally seen as Prague's weakness. The three galago species make up for the single callitrichid; otherwise the collections are fairly equal.

Chester probably has a slight edge in monkey enclosures, but Prague's islands are really nice as well, and the macaque cliff enclosure really is fantastic.

I'm happy to give Chester's chimp enclosure and Prague's gorilla one equal billing, but the real daylight in this category comes with the orangs, where ROTRA really dominates the Indonesian House.

Chester's Bat House deserves the credit it has received in this thread, but Prague still takes the Other Mammals category, and the overall win, due to the following numbers: 32-8. That's the rodent tallies for each zoo. For a truly great zoo like Chester, it's an embarrassing weakness and I believe it cost it the match.

One of the world's greatest zoos ran into a buzzsaw entirely of its own making I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top