Snowleopard, on his epic road trip, gave a very thorough review of the Toronto Zoo, which provoked a significant amount of debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowleopard
I knew that some of the Torontonians would be offended by me calling the zoo average. I just felt, and still feel the same way, that I could name at least a handful of better exhibits elsewhere for each enclosure at the zoo.
|
Putting (some of) my inherent defensiveness behind, I do agree with snowleopard on the basic premise of his review. There are few stand-out exhibits, but as a whole, I think Toronto is more cohesive than most. Unlike many "great zoos", Toronto has relatively little history; the site was constructed 35 years ago. When the zoo opened, it was very revolutionary for several reasons:
1) Its size - at 710 acres, the zoo is massive (although only about half of the land is actually developed), and it was all built at once
2) An entirely zoogeographic concept - the zoo was one of the first (if not THE first) to group all of the animals by region ... with only a few exceptions (e.g., emerald tree boas in Australasia, used as a counterpoint to the green tree python display). Most of the indoor plant collection is geographically arranged as well.
3) The "Indoor Zoo". As Zooplantman mentioned, the indoor pavilions are definitely the star exhibits during the winter for most visitors. In 1974, I believe the idea was pretty unique - the designers probably scratched their heads for some time to figure out how to provide indoor viewing, when the only models they had to go with were cat houses and monkey buildings.
Because the zoo was built all at once, for the first 20 years the infrastructure was all "new" ... but as things started to decay/need replacement, it all needed to be done at the same time. This obviously is not conducive to financial planning! (Older zoos, which have had a constant cycle of replacement are much better off in this regard, I think, especially in terms of the mindset of doing so). In the meantime, the zoo has been trying to play "catch up" with the new, amazing exhibits built elsewhere, but without the innovativeness needed to really succeed.
The pavilions themselves are an early example of immersion exhibitry, although by today's standards they probably wouldn't be called 'immersion'. (FYI, the pathways were initially bare earth, but the dust caused on crowded days was so severe that they laid interlocking brick after the first summer). The exhibits within are generally simple, but are effective in compromising the needs of the visitors with those of the animals. There is no elaborate mural work in the original parts, no cleverly disguised barriers ... basically, no illusion. What you see is what you get, which is rather at odds with the current exhibit philosophy.
Even with the gorilla rainforest renovation in the Africa pavilion, the only indoor exhibit which comes even close to being fully immersion (by today's standards) is the tiny Malayan Woods Pavilion by the Indian rhinos. The design is not complex, but I think it is effective for the public, being lushly planted, with free flight birds and butterflies, as well as fish in an open tank, two separate aviaries (my least favourite part of the pavilion), and the clouded leopards. (To get defensive for JUST a bit ... snowleopard's comment about the leopard exhibit being appropriate size-wise for squirrels is, in my view, an unfair exaggeration. It is not huge, but it is larger than many that I have seen ... they have natural substrate and climbing opportunities (although they could/should have more) ... my main complaint would be the poor use of space by the 'stream' that runs through the exhibit. If you are disappointed with this exhibit, definitely steel yourself before going into Cincinnati's cat house!).
Several of the exhibits which snowleopard condemns I don't have much of a problem with (Kota the snow leopard was able to completely avoid detection by visitors for the first few months he lived in the exhibit, and unlike some other snow leopard exhibits, at least they have natural substrate), and likewise I am surprised that some other exhibits that I think are the pits (including the African free-flight + otter exhibit) didn't make the list. I guess that's the fun of making and comparing lists!