I found an old news piece from way back in 1989, where it mentions that Parade Magazine released a list of the "10 Best and 10 Worst Zoos" at the current time, and it lists the 10 best/worst. I don't have the original Parade article, but will link below the article from which I found the information. Experts in Magazine Survey Call Bronx Zoo Best How do you think these hold up today? THE BEST (ALPHABETICAL ORDER) 1. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Still beloved and highly-regarded. Have not personally been. 2. Audubon Park and Zoological Garden (Audubon Zoo) Interesting seeing it on this list as I don't hear of many ranking it very high or even talking about it much. Having visited it about a year ago, I thought it was a good zoo but definitely some parts felt outdated and small. 3. Bronx Zoo Still regarded by many as one of the best zoos in the country. Been many times and 100% agree. 4. Chicago Zoological Park (Brookfield Zoo) - This is one of the most polarizing zoos on this board. Many agree that some sections (especially Tropic World) are way outdated. Not sure if it would rank this high today. I've never visited here personally. 5. Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden Hippo-gate, commercialization and rare species loss have not been a good look for the zoo in recent years, or at least that's the sentiment from most comments here. I have my doubts most here would consider it a top-tier facility any more, but maybe casuals would because of the media exposure (or maybe not, because of Harambe). I've never been to this zoo. 6. Los Angeles Zoo Some new exhibits (LAIR, new elephant habitat) have mostly been a success, but the zoo still has a number of sections that would be deemed a bit outdated and in need of a facelift. I loved LA Zoo on my visit this past year, perhaps more than most here, due to the collection and the new exhibits. But I don't think it will stay so highly-ranked when I visit more top-tier zoos and the rare/interesting species continue departing. 7. National Zoological Park (Smithsonian National Zoo) Apparently some here say its disappointing, but I don't think anyone will rank the exhibit quality as anything but great. Having recently visited, I thinks it's excellent. 8. San Diego Zoo Still regarded by many as one of the best zoos in the country, even if some feel its overrated because its not literally "the best". Been here and 100% agree of its top status. 9. St. Louis Zoological Park Still regarded as one of the best zoos in the country by the majority here. Never been yet. 10. Woodland Park Zoological Gardens I feel it's not talked about that much on here compared to other top zoos, but when it is everything said is very, very positive. I've never been here personally. THE WORST 1. Brevard Zoological Park This is NOT the current Brevard Zoo, which opened in 1994. It's actually Houser's Grove Zoo, which was in the area and closed during the late 80's-early 90's. Most of the animals in that zoo ended going to Brevard when it opened. Having been to the new Brevard Zoo, I think its a great "small" zoo and personally the best one visited so far. Definitely not a worst zoo anymore. 2. Franklin Park Zoo Certainly could use upgrades in areas, but I think everyone will agree that Tropical Forest is a high-quality exhibit especially with the Gorillas now having beautiful outdoor access. Having visited, I'd perhaps consider Franklin Park Zoo the most disappointing zoo because of it's representation as Boston's main zoological facility, but its definitely no longer a bottom-quality zoo. 3. Glen Oak Zoo (Peoria Zoo) Became Peoria Zoo, which from what I see on here is a very well-regarded smaller zoo by those who've visited. Never been here. 4. Knowland Park Zoo (Oakland Zoo) Became Oakland Zoo and is well-regarded on here and seems much improved. Never been here. 5. Nay Aug Zoo This zoo in Scranton, PA has been closed for many years. Very bad history. A "sanctuary" opened in the former site after its closure, but that place was cited multiple times for mistreating animals and it also closed in the late 2000's. 6. Prospect Park Zoo Taken over by WCS and transformed into a highly regarded children's zoo. Having been here, its a very nice small facility in my former home town. Can't say I remember the bad zoo as I wasn't even born then. 7. Saunookes Bear Land This is probably the same facility as Cherokee Bear Zoo in Cherokee, NC - which is still around looks like an absolute hellhole. Never visited. 8. Space Farms Zoo and Museum This place is in Sussex, NJ and shockingly is still around! Still considered a bad facility from reviews on here. Apparently also on a previous Parade list for worst zoos in 1984 as well. Never been here. 9. Terry Lou Zoo Also in New Jersey (Scotch Plains). This zoo appears to have long closed. Of course, never been here. 10. Walk in the Wild This zoo was in Spokane, WA. Closed in the mid-90's. Never been. It's very interesting seeing zoos evolving and changing over the years. It's also interesting seeing how Parade called out only a few "roadsides" while the rest were largely city zoos. I'd figure with so many terrible private little menageries still popping up today even in economically rough times and with very stringent animal welfare and import laws, there would have been even more back in the 80's, many having been completely lost to time in the pre-internet era. I wonder why Parade specifically called out only a few of these terrible roadsides? I'm also surprised how places like Space Farms and Bear Zoo manage to stay in business so long. They're not in very visited areas and they still manage ignoring and staying ignorant of the changing animal welfare expectations as if stuck in a time warp. Reading this article, I've gained an interest in looking into the history of today's roadsides and seeing how long some of them have been around. You'd think most close as fast as they open, but apparently there are more than a few places that have not changed and sadly stood the test of time. Edit: Would anyone by any chance know if any such articles were released in the 90's? I'm not interested in "best" and "worst" zoo articles from recent times, because a) not historically significant yet b) best articles seem way too uninformed and based on online-reviews and popular advertisement rather than meaningful criteria c) worst articles are written by the most extreme ARA's now (basically any zoo with elephants makes the list of a bad zoo).
I’d love to see the original Parade article if anyone can find it. I am curious to hear if the article gave any justification for why each zoo is placed where it is, as I always find it interesting to hear what different zoos were like at different points in time and how they may have evolved since when the article was written.
Sorry for the back to back post, but for some interesting history, 1989 (the year the article was written) was also the same year that the Franklin Park Zoo opened their $25 million Tropical Forest building. At that point in time, the only other exhibits at the zoo were the children’s zoo, the hoofstock yards, and the bird house. In the years since the article has been written, the old hoofstock yards were mostly closed and the children’s zoo was replaced. Other additions include a new Lion and Serengeti exhibit (1997), a butterfly walkthrough and Australia exhibit (1998), a giraffe habitat (1999), a new tiger exhibit (2006), renovations for the interior gorilla exhibit (2006), and most recently the new outdoor gorilla exhibit which opened earlier this year. Of course, the zoo still has tons of empty space, and most of the exhibits built in the late 90s were constructed very cheaply and lack immersive elements.
Both lists seem very personalized. Do you know if these were derived from polls or some sampling of opinions? Because it feels like the opinion of either a single individual or a small group. I never see Audubon make any Top 10 lists, and I know many consider ASDM to be high quality, but I feel like one would only put that so high if you had specific tastes. The rest of the Top 10 would feel believable even today, although without the omission of Omaha. The Worst 10 are also oddly specific, mainly taking on niche local facilities that have (mostly) since closed down. I haven't been to any of the listed facilities, so of course, I could just as well be coming in here blind. I understand this was back at the tail end of the 80s so things might have changed, but it's still a very unorthodox list (which is in no way a bad thing).
I always thought FPZ's big cat habitat were from way back, they certainly look it. Kind of disappointing that was the best they could muster up. A number of these zoos made the previous 1984 list as well, including FPZ. It could very well be these negative rankings spurred on many zoos to change for the better.
The article I posted said it was from a questionnaire Parade asked to 400 zoo professionals and animal rights activists, anything more specific I couldn't tell you. I also agree some of this sounds very specific, mainly the roadsides picked out for the worst list. The Top 10 feels understandable. Audubon is a surprise, but I have a feeling the habitats now considered old and outdated were very modern back in the 80s. Not many zoos considered great today were back then. Omaha, NC and Dallas didn't experience their major rise until the 90s or even later (I think).
I read the article when it came out and have never been able to find it since. If anybody here has access to a library database that includes Parade magazine that might be a route to explore, although I'm not sure that it ranks as a publication that libraries would archive. The list of the worst zoos did have some profound material effects in the real world. The modern Oakland Zoo and Zoo Atlanta were created because of the negative attention that this article brought them. New management and infusion of funding turned them into highly regarded modern zoos from their previous status as rotten zoos. It may be that some of the roadside zoos closed because of the article. Franklin Park Zoo has been steadily improving, slowly, over the past 30 years.
The Audubon Zoo's native Louisiana exhibit was indeed considered a pioneering immersion exhibit with a focus on native species back in the 1980s. They also had extensive mixed species exhibits of South American animals and African animals that were considered models of excellence. This zoo is still well-regarded today, if not considered avant-garde as it may have been back in the late 1980s.
Those are certainly interesting lists. The "best" zoos list contains some gems, but all with issues surrounding aging infrastructure. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum had a lot of amazing exhibits built throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, but in the past 20 years progress has slowed considerably. Audubon Zoo opened its Louisiana Swamp complex in 1984, and I enjoyed the zoo when I visited in 2010, but there hasn't really been anything major at that facility since then. A few tweaks here and there, the addition of lions and the overhaul of the Asian area, but nothing really substantial (like a brand-new zone) in close to 40 years! Bronx Zoo and Brookfield Zoo have both had fallow periods in the past 15 years, although at least Brookfield appears to be waking from its slumber with an ambitious outdoor expansion of Tropic World. Cincinnati, Los Angeles, San Diego and Saint Louis have all opened loads of new exhibit areas since the 1980s, often spending vast sums of money in the process. Smithsonian's National Zoo and Woodland Park Zoo are both still excellent facilities, although feeling a little unloved at the moment in terms of new exhibits. The zoo nerds on this site who buy loads of zoological history books will already know the fascinating trends that zoos have. There are the 'ups' (bond issues, government support, lots of shiny new additions) and the 'downs' (low attendance numbers, controversy, finances in the red) for all zoos. Every major zoo in America has had a decade or more of stagnancy, where nothing much changes and the staff (almost all poorly paid to begin with) either stick with an amazing job that they love or bounce around from zoo to zoo. And then there are the wonderful decades, when a zoo will receive a taxpayer bond issue for $125 million (Oregon Zoo in 2008) and then overhaul 50% of their acreage. Omaha, Fresno and Houston are three more examples of U.S. zoos that have renovated close to half their acreage in recent times. I've spent my whole life researching zoos and there is always the sense that there is a feast or famine approach to running the facilities. A 10 best list of zoos now might include San Diego, Omaha, Saint Louis, Bronx and Columbus (almost surely a favourite zoo nerd 'big 5') and then after that it comes down to personal opinion. I'd go with Sedgwick County, North Carolina, Denver, Miami and San Diego Zoo Safari Park. But what about Dallas, Houston, Woodland Park, etc.? It's a tough debate. Even the very best zoos have their ups and downs. I just finished reading a brand-new biography on Chuck Bieler and he was hired by the San Diego Zoo even though he knew nothing about animals, at one point mistaking a tiger for a lion (!!), and earlier he spent years at General Motors selling cars. However, Bieler is like many zoo directors of the past 50 years, as he's yet another individual who couldn't tell a kinkajou from a cuscus. However, the #1 job of a zoo director these days is to raise money. There is endless fundraising, schmoozing with philanthropic donors, dealing with hundreds of staff members, budgeting and scheduling and everything else that comes with management positions. The animals are practically an afterthought. There are a few dozen zoo directors in the U.S. right at this moment who never once worked at a zoo before they were hired, let alone have a zoology or biology degree. Many used to work in the corporate world and are skilled at handling finances and delegating jobs to people around them. These directors might have only visited a handful of zoos before they were hired, less than some zoo nerds will visit in a single weekend while on a trip, yet they are excellent at their job because that particular leadership role has changed over the last few decades. @Zooplantman mentioned, on another thread, how there is now a "different focus" when it comes to recently hired directors, and that "zoos are very top down organizations". He's absolutely correct. A guy like Chuck Bieler was hired by the San Diego Zoo in 1969 and before long he was running the joint! (Although he was sensationally blindsided when he was demoted in 1985). Bieler was there when the San Diego Wild Animal Park opened in 1972 and it was a money losing park for a decade before it made a penny. So much money was sunk into the WAP that the San Diego Zoo had 10 years of stagnancy, with crumbling exhibits and loads of disgruntled employees. Then in the 1980s, the funding of the organization switched back to the San Diego Zoo and a stream of successes followed. Feast or famine. Some of the "worst" zoos in America were overhauled with the determination of a single individual. Terry Maple at Zoo Atlanta is a classic example, or Joel Parrott, who revolutionized Oakland Zoo in his 37 years at the helm. There's Lee G. Simmons and his 39 years in Omaha, Douglas Myers and his 34 years in San Diego, Jeffrey Bonner's 20 years at Saint Louis Zoo, etc. These guys improved their zoos enormously. Gary Clarke (26 years at Topeka Zoo) and Palmer "Satch" Krantz (40 years at Riverbanks Zoo) are men who were at their zoos near the beginning and stayed for decades. Who knows which mediocre American zoo will be a future world-class facility in the future? Perhaps Rick Schwartz is a great recent example, as he has been at Nashville Zoo for a very long time and the progress there has been amazing. That zoo had more than 1.2 million visitors in 2019, without resorting to rollercoasters or other crap but instead building new animal exhibits that have won AZA awards. Up next, the zoo has Komodo Dragons, a parking garage, Amur Leopards, Colobus Monkeys, De Brazza's Monkeys and a 40-acre African Safari all happening. Will Nashville Zoo make a "top 10 list" in the future? Probably! Which other zoos could be surprises?
Excellent post, thank you for the insite about the zoo directors! Re: zoos with bright futures - Not that it was ever considered mediocre, but I'm keeping my eye on Cleveland. Bear Hollow and Primate Forest if successful should elevate this zoo tremendously. NC Zoo is of course already very highly regarded, but if upcoming Asia expansion is a success, could it be up there with Bronx and San Diego? Brevard Zoo is another zoo I feel has a very bright future. The new aquarium project could really push it to a new level.
I thought the aquarium was a separate facility away from the zoo. Regardless, Brevard is still the best zoo in FL.
Brookfield being in anyone's top ten feels tragically laughable today, but their collection was significantly more dense in the eighties, still including primates, reptiles, small mammals, small/medium cats, ungulates and aquatic birds now long gone in addition to elephants and kiwi, and I imagine that breadth of collection was a factor here. That and the fact many thought Tropic World was innovative at the time in spite of other indoor rainforests all over the country. Besides that, nothing jumping out at me, this seems like the same kind of lists I saw as a kid except by then Colombus seemed to be doing better. I recall Audubon having a better reputation in the nineties.
No worries, I do think Brevard is "one" of the best in the state but certainly doesn't rank against some of the larger zoological facilities. And my favorite does change almost yearly given the ebb and flow of species/exhibit gained and lost.
Regarding the Audubon Zoo (which I have not yet visited and know only by reputation and reading about it), it needs to be noted that they built an aquarium and a world-class insectarium (considered to be a model of excellence for the field) after this Parade zoo investigative report came out. The zoo itself has rebuilt large sections of the zoo to modern standards in the subsequent decades with a new reptile complex, elephant exhibit, nocturnal house, South America complex, orangutan exhibit, etc. They have not at all remained stagnant.
I'm not really wanting to split hairs about this zoo, but I didn't call it stagnant. Here's what I said: "Audubon Zoo opened its Louisiana Swamp complex in 1984, and I enjoyed the zoo when I visited in 2010, but there hasn't really been anything major at that facility since then. A few tweaks here and there, the addition of lions and the overhaul of the Asian area, but nothing really substantial (like a brand-new zone) in close to 40 years!" It is fascinating to look at the history of the establishment, aside from the nearby Aquarium (which will soon have the adjacent Insectarium). I'll dive a little deeper: Audubon Zoo has not opened a brand-new zone in close to 40 years. The sea lion pool and Reptile House (originally an Aquarium) both opened around a century ago. Asian Domain opened in 1979. World of Primates in 1980. African Savanna is early 1980s. South American Pampas is early 1980s. Louisiana Swamp is 1984. The Reptile House was revamped in the 1980s. Those are the zoo's different zones in a nutshell. It's extremely dated infrastructure and there might even be carpet in the Reptile House (I can't remember). The good news is that some of that old stuff, built from the legendary 1970s Master Plan after the Humane Society almost closed the zoo down, has been partially rebuilt. Asian Domain had an overhaul, which updated some exhibits but also leaves the zoo with one of America's smallest elephant paddocks and a barn that is too small to ever allow breeding. It's just an AZA holding center for aging elephants. Even the new orangutan exhibit is only 25% larger than the 1980s version. A $3 million Nocturnal House was added to the South American zone in 2018. Lions were added to the African Savanna in 2019. That area also saw Red River Hogs replace the Common Hippos in 2008. The zoo lost its Drills and other primate rarities (are the talapoins still there?) and in all honesty the zoo's map from the late 1980s and the current zoo map look almost identical. I didn't use the word "stagnant" but I probably should have! Comparing the two maps, at first glance there aren't many changes in the past 4 decades. One issue with the Audubon Zoo, which is probably still a half-decent zoo overall, is that so many other places have dramatically changed since the 1980s. The zoo simply hasn't had the funding required to keep pace with modern developments. The Audubon Nature Institute opened the Audubon Aquarium of the Americas in 1990 and aquariums are notoriously expensive to maintain. Currently, there is a $34 million renovation of the aquarium that will see the Insectarium open in 2023 as part of the experience (although probably an extra ticketed attraction). Maybe the Audubon Zoo will get some love a few years down the road, as it certainly needs it.
Talapoin should still be there, although sadly they were off-exhibit when I visited (January 2022). I also thought the same thing about the elephant enclosure, and some of the primates and the lion exhibits felt like they could use some more expansion and aesthetic upgrades as well. The reptile house held up quite well actually, and I don't think they have carpet anymore but don't remember I'm actually surprised hearing lions were only added as recently in 2018.
