If any of these plans reflect the current thinking about the zoo's future direction, I can see why they wouldn't "reveal" them. Very naive and slapdash--clearly not a product of a truly experienced zoo planning firm.
I was quite puzzled with the erstwhile Masterplan and the Zoo Map on the ground. I would have liked for someone to signal / observe - if the said Masterplan was correct - why the f.i. the rhino and hippo exhibit was in a completely different site than in said Masterplan. Knowing that they made happer-dash renos to the hippo exhibit to accomodate new animals that explains no change to the zoo map. So, it seems the rhino and hippo are still in the current zoo map area then? That was exactly what prompted me to question the said masterplan and the state of the current zoo map in the first place. I could not match up one and two ... errhh!!! @gerenuk, from what I could gather from your ... rather quirky ... response (I full well know the concept of a Masterplan as a future red line versus a current zoo map of good / bad / standard exhibits and not what may / should be .. as not being the same). As I understand it ... several former exhibits are now derelict or out-of-use (???) and have been left out of the current zoo map. Now, I would not like to find myself in a zoo with a zoo map where important bits and pieces have been simply and completely left out (what use / purpose a zoo map other than for directions and orientation if it is not fully up-to-date zoo ... one would ask???). IMO, it really would not be too difficult for zoo staff to mark out those locations and pathways that currently are not occupied / used and put in signs of "currently under re-development" or whatever. That would put me and surely most zoo visitors perhaps more at ease. I am sure most zoo visitors understand that in no zoo Rome is built in a day or two and that sometimes new redevelopments do take a bit longer to get through and going. The very fact that - as you suggested (citing marketing concepts ...(???)) - this has not happened till date, if I was walking around the zoo in those parts I would feel somewhat "lost". Having an experience like that would make me less inclined to consider a repeat visit and I would say that is exactly bad marketing for any zoo. This and the very fact that other posters have put in a quite considerable list of long needed / out-of-date renovations for iconic species ..... I will re-list it here (courtesy of @Buldeo), underline that something on the animal exhibit front gotta give: QUOTE BULDEO's LIST: My preferences: 1.) Chimps 1.) Bears 3.) Snow leopards 4.) Primate Discovery Center 5.) The other Big Cats 6.) Gorillas"" UNQOUTE Building / re-vamping another playground is all doodly diddly dah dah .., but people visit zoos to see live animals and plants (and they like to see them in attractive and from animal welfare aspects good - great exhibits). Much needed complete revamps of current and / or new animal exhibits have not happened to date (I am not talking that tiger barrier stuff or the small reno on hippo). Now the new (first ad-interim) CEO has now been there well on 2 years, still ... seemingly no sign of a new Masterplan (come to think of it ... what was wrong with the old one???) nor a direction beyond stalemate and keeping as a going concern. Again, people like to see new exhibits once in a while and the zoo needs to be seen to evolve. That is not done by simply re-inventing playgrounds or entry plazas! The fact that SF Zoo's current team seemingly has not outed a new Masterplan equally does not bode well - for SF Zoo's future (another bad marketing move IMO ..., local people need and deserve to know the direction the zoo is going / taking)! And again, it is not just about providing good facilities or amenities, ... the best part is about renewing exhibits, inventing new ones and getting the punters in .... and keep them coming back in for more (by building opening a new precinct / exhibit / themed area every 1+-2 years)!!! Come to think of it: IMO the "old" Masterplan may just have been at the sketch up / dreamboard stage, it did not look too bad on me (@..., please elaborate would you thought was "bad" about it). I just think it was not finished yet, as all the text and criteria was not even there. Here is hoping for a lively and continued debate about the wished-fors and neededs at SF Zoo with all ye SF Zoo regulars!!!
The areas no longer shown on the map are also no longer places the public can access. In most cases the pathways in those areas did not meet current standards for accessibility, and in the topsy-turvy insane world of San Francisco, the zoo was being sued by "disability advocacy groups" to alter the pathways at great expense to meet codes for maximum allowable slopes etc. This in a city built on and famous for its steep hills! It was more practical for the zoo to close these areas for the time being--no one will be "confused" by the maps as there is no access to the closed areas. It does, however, add to the palpable sense of contraction, "emptiness" and lack of future direction of the zoo.
Many Americans are too impatient to understand this concept. Even posters on this forum are unsatisfied with the rate of many zoos' development. Not every zoo can be endowed with a wealthy populace to constantly fund new exhibits - its just not realistic. It is also because of the "disability advocacy groups" that the zoo has put a large investment into a new playground that can accommodate all children. Literally the zoo was forced to build a new playground because of a lawsuit. Also, you would be surprised on the effect that a fancy new playground would have on a zoo's primary visitors - families with small children. They are the reason why the zoo focused on the children's zoo first in the last masterplan. From my understanding, the zoo still seems to be in damage control - working on projects that will reduce litigation and reduce budget costs without reducing the animal collection. San Francisco is a very expensive place to build anything, $1 million doesn't go very far in this area. The zoo is also next to the ocean and any development has to consider the corrosive nature of the seawater in the air.
