When a new exhibit is announced, without a doubt the most exciting part is seeing the renderings and concept art of how the exhibit will look. It’s one thing to hear about the plans or see blueprints of how the area will be organized, but actually seeing the idea visualized is what it takes to really generate excitement for future projects. Oftentimes however, the renderings and/or concept art look better than the final product. Value engineering leads to some ideas being scaled-back and while it’s easy to draw up cool ideas, building them with the same level of detail is a far greater challenge. In this thread, I want to take a look at how some exhibits evolved from a conceptual design to a real life zoo enclosure. This is an open thread where I encourage everyone to contribute where they can and post any comparisons they find interesting. I myself have a few exhibits I want to highlight and to get the ball rolling I’ll start out with two recent projects that had a number of differences in appearance between the renderings and reality. Lincoln Park Zoo’s lion house remodel was generally well received when it was completed a few years ago, although this is definitely a case of a rendering looking more pretty than the final design. Here is a comparison between two areas of the exhibit. Rendering: Reality: @ZooNerd1234 There’s some pretty obvious differences right off the bat. What caught my eye first was the rendering depicted a more naturalistic appearance both in the rockwork (more closely resembling a kopje) and the landscaping, with savanna grasses and trees both in and around the lion exhibit. Ultimately the zoo settled on a gray coloration with the rockwork and concrete walls in the viewing area, while opting for . Additional rockwork and faux trees were added to the center of the area, which were not shown in the concept art. The one other change I notice is that it appears there was going to be a second viewing area on the left side of the rendering, when in the final product the above picture is the only such viewing area on this side of the exhibit. Rendering: Reality: Now this part of the exhibit actually came out pretty close to what the rendering suggests. The only differences beyond the aforementioned aesthetics are the lack of deadfall and that a layer of carpet was added to the interior. Otherwise the way the viewing windows are set-up is identical and even the rockwork is positioned similarly in both photos. I know the furthest right window is out of frame in the bottom picture, but just trust me on this. However, on some occasions the rendering actually undersells the exhibit and it turns out better than expected in real life. A recent example of this is Nashville's new komodo dragon complex. The concept art depicted a spacious but rather barren yard, yet the actual enclosure ended up being beautifully planted and far more dynamic than initially presented. They also never went through with the hollow log waterfall, instead just going with a simple stream leading to the pool. Rendering: Reality:
This could turn out to be a terrific thread. I really like the look of the rendering for Lincoln Park Zoo's Lion House, particularly the trees that soften the appearance of the building materials. And the photo of the Komodo Dragon exhibit at Nashville Zoo is fantastic, as it looks as if a visitor could just take one small step over the fence and be in with the lizards. Of course there's a steep incline on the other side, but the image gives the impression that it would be possible to reach over and pet a dragon!
The Komodo dragon exhibit concept drawing shows one common reality-distorting trick that designers use to draw in audiences with exhibit concept presentations, which is to show the exhibit full of many more animals than will really be in it. Eight Komodo dragons in a yard is not going to happen in real life.
Roger Williams Park Zoo's Faces of the Rainforest immediately comes to mind as one where the final product and concept art looked different. Here is some of the concept art (including a video and photos), which I pulled off of a quick google search: Not only do parts of it (e.g., the fish tanks) look very different than the finished results, but there are also some notable differences in the species shown versus the species in the exhibit, with species such as squirrel monkeys and blue-and-gold macaws shown in concept art but never featured in the final exhibit. Here is what the real exhibit looks like (all photos by @TinoPup):
Oregon Zoo (USA) had plans for a new Polar Bear exhibit for many years, with the rendering showing a thick forested backdrop and a multi-tiered, naturalistic habitat for the bears. Here's the drawing the design firm (CLR) came up with: Now here are 6 photos of the finished exhibit that I took last summer and while there are certainly some similarities between the rendering and reality, in truth the final product left me a little disappointed. It's not nearly as glamorous and appealing as the original design image. There's lots of clunky sightlines and various structures in prominent view. The exhibit, now called Polar Passage, had already been open for two years (2021) and it cost around $20 million.
I mean, it may not look quite like the concept art, but at least Oregon Zoo followed through and *built* a polar bear exhibit that was announced...
I'd next like to take a look at one of the largest recent projects completed this decade. San Diego's Wildlife Explorers Basecamp came out at an eye-watering $88 million when it opened in 2022 and was met with overwhelmingly positive reviews. For the most part it came out as originally promised, although one section in particular was heavily altered. The Marsh Meadows section was originally going to be netted over and feature a variety of new world birds alongside fish. Ultimately, things were scaled back and they opted not to make it aviary (not like San Diego doesn't have enough of those already) and the vegetation isn't nearly as lush, although that could have just been an artistic liberty. The final product consists of two pond habitats for dwarf crocodiles, a variety of turtles and some fish. Still really good, although I’d be lying if I said I wasn't a little bummed it didn't appear a little more like the concept art. Rendering: Reality: @pachyderm pro The Basecamp saw a few other changes too: planned exhibits for pangolins and armadillos were replaced by small tortoises and the design of the two main buildings were altered a bit. At least the entrance to the exhibit looks identical to the concept art. Rendering: Reality: @Julio C Castro One last note: It seems to have been erased from the web, but I distinctly remember a piece of concept art that depicted a walkthrough squirrel monkey exhibit when the project was first announced. Ultimately this idea was dropped and the monkeys instead received the exhibit pictured below, inaccessible to visitors. @pachyderm pro
For the most part the Fresno Chaffee Zoo has stuck really close with their renderings compared to the final product. Some things I noticed about the African expansion rendering trailer is that the wildebeest herd sculptures were switched for a cheetah and cubs at the entrance and that Giraffes can move into the main Savannah area and in the Twiga Trail even on day one I do not recall ever seeing a dedicated vulture area even though they come up on an old map for the area and I do not think the Elands has even been present in the new area before and while present in the old savannah area I think were phased out. Kingdoms of Asia stuck even closer with the only major differences being a tuktuk next to the first tiger exbibit, benches in the room area in between the false gharial and sloth bear, however the biggest deviation from the rendering is the one-horned rhino in the old Asian elephant exhibit which is now for tapirs and babirusa. Kingdoms of Asia: Coming Soon to Fresno Chaffee Zoo (youtube.com) Fresno Chaffee Zoo's African Adventure - Opening 2015 (youtube.com)
A common theme I've noticed here is that there almost always a discrepancy between how vegetation there is in a rendering compared to the final exhibit. Usually artists prefer to overdue it with the greenery and make the exhibits look far more densely planted than they actually end up being. Once again though, sometimes the pendulum swings the other way. However, I can think of at least one instance where the landscaping in a rendering was surprisingly accurate to the final product, for better or for worse. The initial rendering of Milwaukee County Zoo’s African elephant exhibit looked rather desolate, basically lacking any greenery at all. And when the exhibit finally opened, it honestly didn't look all that different. A few willow trees were kept over from the moose enclosure that once occupied the space and the fake baobab was (thankfully) traded out in favor of a smaller scratching post disguised as a tree stump. There were also a few small trees added by the pool area, but overall it was unfortunate how visually uninteresting the exhibit looked upon opening. Luckily the sky-tram runs right past the area which enabled a pretty interesting aerial comparison. Rendering: Reality: @pachyderm pro However, several years have passed since that photo was taken and the yard has actually aged surprisingly well. While it’s still not the most attractive elephant exhibit out there, fully grown in grass and some scattered logs go a long way (the elephant made quick work of those willow trees though...). Sometimes an exhibit just needs some time to settle in before it can be seen at it's best. @Wild wolverine
That rendering looks like it was built in Planet Zoo. I wonder if any zoos will actually use that for their renderings.
I was thinking it looked more like a modded Zoo Tycoon 2 build. Honestly if I was in charge of a small zoo and needed to make some concept art for an upcoming exhibit, it sounds a whole lot cheaper to get someone who's a pro at Planet Zoo to make something instead of a design firm.
Yeah I was gonna say, I know at least a few PZ players that could easily produce professional level material.
Such a shame San Diego, of all places, couldn't bring walkthrough squirrel monkeys to the US, and pangolin could have probably done better there than anywhere else. I really hope primate walkthroughs can make their way here sometime. By the time I made my first visit to this exhibit, the grass had grown in... seeing how desolate it looked at opening, no wonder people were disappointed, it looked like a total desert back there!
There actually is one walkthrough squirrel monkey enclosure in the US; the monkey village exhibit at Phoenix Zoo. It isn't nearly as impressive as similar exhibits in Europe, but it's nice that at least one facility on this side of the pond provides the experience.
I do wonder if AI will be used for these type of concept art in the future. The answer would probably be yes.
For better or for worse, AI isn't here yet. I recently out of curiosity tried to use AI to develop concept art for some fantasy zoo exhibits I described... and the results were terrifying. Unless you want six-eyed, human-sized naked mole rats, or freaky tiger/zebra hybrids, then I don't recommend using AI for zoo concept art... yet. Of course, who knows where this technology will be in one year, let alone five or ten.
Back in the mid 2010s, someone who worked at the New England Aquarium showed me a blueprint for the upcoming renovations on what is now the “Olympic Coast” portion of the Northern Waters Gallery. It highlighted three species: the giant Pacific octopus, the wolffish, and the Japanese spider crab, all in three large tanks making up the exhibit. Only one of these three actually ended up being the final product, and it’s obvious which one. The Olympic Coast exhibit is only two tanks now, the other one just being a collective tank. I was disappointed to not get spider crabs at the aquarium, but the redone octopus exhibit looks so much better than it did.
