No wonder I saw so many reptiles last year, I went to 3 of those I'd guess DWA would be #1 for birds?
Presumably, yes, but the zoo also has breeding complexes: a bird center, but many of the species kept there are just remnants of old exhibits; lots of reptile holding (including their tuataras), and a lot of small ungulates.
I would argue that the Zoo isn't really trying to compete with the Safari Park in terms of large mammals, but then again the Zoo and Safari Park are owned by the same organization so they aren't competing with each other at all. And I don't agree that just because a zoo isn't trying to compete with another zoo in a certain area, that means you cannot criticize their issues in said area. Yes the Safari Park isn't a reptile-centered zoo, but that still is a knock on the Safari Park and it's completely fair to criticize their reptile areas in comparison to the zoo's excellent reptile exhibits. And while the SDZSP has some tremendous exhibits, I don't think any of them can compare to the Owens Or Scripps aviaries, the outside reptile exhibits or the Kopje area. I'm also generally a quality over quantity person, but when something combines quantity and quality (the San Diego Zoo for instance) I prefer that. Does the SDZ have bad exhibits? Yes, but I'd say at least 90% of the exhibits are at least average with many being among the best in their kind, along with one of the zoo world's greatest collections, making it a no-brainer for me. And we are in agreement that the Safari Park is better for large mammals then the zoo, but in every other category the zoo comes out on top. The Petting Kraal was kinda forgettable for me, and that area was probably the weakest in the zoo imo.
As I have said before, a big drawback to any zoo is an "ARCHITECT". Some zoo directors and curators make some terrible mistakes; Chester, Newquay, Twycross!!!
Design yes but as a building with a purpose to keep and display animals with the requirements of the animal and the zoo visitor in mind. Not as a work of art for it's own sake.
I get what you're trying to say and I do agree to an extent, but at the same time I think architecture-- particularly from a historical aspect-- should be preserved in zoos.* If anything ever happened to the old buildings at Bronx I would be extremely gutted! *Obviously it can get out of hand, though re: London... ~Thylo
And Whipsnade and Dudley! Three Elephant Houses no longer used for elrphants. Two of which never had outdoor enclosures when built!!!!
Well are they used for other species now? Bronx's old elephant house is still standing and houses rhinos and reptiles. ~Thylo
Not always! Why design Elephant House with no outdoor enclosure e.g. Whipsnade and Dudley! Yes elehants were walked out and gave rides but otherwise were inside all the time!
I'm not really familiar with either, but given your use of "were", I'm assuming you're talking about old houses. IE, when husbandry standards were different. I can't speak for those places, but some zoos in colder climates prefer to have much larger indoor areas for their elephants because of the weather.
@MichaelS - good architecture is good and bad architecture is bad. And bad architecture often stems from bad clients giving a bad brief and having bad ideas themselves! The giraffe house you laud was designed by an architect - Decimus Burton. To condemn “architects” is bonkers. To condemn poor architecture - the product of clients and architects - is fair enough.
Yes I know it was achitect designed that's why I laud it. It was well and simply designed and it works! Compare and contrast with the smaller houses around it? Especially those viewed from an 'underground' passage now just closed as a service corridor!!!
Neither Whipsnade or Dudley are large open indoor spaces! The climate is not such that animals must be inside for days on end.
Is there any problem with zoo buildings that look nice on their own? Yes, some old zoo buildings that look nice jeapordize the needs of their residents. However, I would rather an interesting designed building with adequate displays over a warehouse-style building with equally adequate displays.
A lot of people on here focus on general zoos but I'm a water person in a coastal region of the US, so I'm much more familiar with North American aquariums. And of those which I have seen, I gotta say that Vancouver Aquarium felt like a highly disorganized mess. The species list is impressive compared to other Canadian aquariums, yeah, and it's been a year since I went, but I had been under the impression that the aquarium was an impressive and linear experience. It felt more like a few rooms with some in-wall tanks which used cheap coral inserts in multiple cases. A lot of the species are probably under appreciated by the average tourist as well. My family would say Shedd Aquarium, but I disagree completely with that, they were just annoyed that I enjoyed the exhibits too much
