sounds a little too boring & to be honest a real waste of money if I were them, I would add some exhibits that's really interesting, like: meerkat exhibit with several pop-up bubbles aviary (lorikeets,budgie, sun conure or any other birds) where visitors can feed birds stingray pool, where visitors can touch or feed cownose ray & southern stingrays contact yard with goats, pigs and other farm animals animal rides
Haven't these exhibits already been done at over a dozen other US zoos? I for one commend the San Diego zoo for showing originality in this upcoming exhibit from other children’s zoos.
So, to reiterate, the Zoo says they want a children's zoo for the 21st century and want it to be innovative, but you want a style of children's zoo that's been done hundreds of times over and is falling out of favor? Alright.
@yousuf89 @Shellheart Perhaps the zoo could have retained some tried and tested features in the plan while still moving forward?
The placement of pangolins in the play zoo seems like a smart move. Most people probably won't make it throughout the whole zoo, but if they have kids the children's zoo will be a definitive stop on their tour. Thus, Pangolins get more publicity. The rest of the plan seems nice. It's a good mix of playground and exhibits. I would much rather prefer this to random playgrounds popping up in zoos. I would still like to see some pop up bubbles, just because they are very immersive, which seems to be the idea with this plan. Maybe a little bit more guest animal interactions with interesting animals, but it seems like the animal ambassadors should fill that role.
The thing is, most of the tried and tested features offer no conservation or educational value, and the zoo is at a point where it needs its exhibits to fulfill both. They don't have a whole lot of space to put stuff just for fun. The Safari Park still has their lorikeet feedings and their petting zoo. I also think this exhibit sounds fun either way. With rope climbing,a treehouse, suspension bridges, and a play stream, it sounds pretty awesome. I have young nieces and nephews, and they all love Tarzan's Treehouse at Disneyland, and this sounds like that but probably a little more active.
Of course it seems boring to a non-child, but if you ask most kids I’d bet that they’d be way more excited for this than for Africa Rocks. It’s definitely overpriced, but if you’ve been to the zoo then you’d know that the Children’s Zoo is tired, and in need of an update. It’s funny that the ideas you mention as “interesting” are done at just about every zoo and are incredibley boring, while an exhibit for Pangolins, walk-in beehive, etc are way more innovative and exciting. In the article, it is stated that a petting zoo will not be included, showing that the zoo clearly wants to separate from the normal Children’s zoo and be unique.
I agree with TZDugong, Shellheart and others when I say that those ideas have already been done to death. The Safari Park already has a petting pen and bird feeding walkthrough. This new experience is adding new animal care centers for desert (Fennec fox, prairie dogs, ground owl) and South American (Mara, coati) species. Along with a squirrel monkey walkthrough, a reptile amphibian fish complex (Which I am officially dubbing the RAF Building from here on out), an interactive beehive experience, a two-story animal ambassador building and an invertebrate complex. Not to mention a rocky stream for kids to play in, a tree house, several fountains and waterfalls and a rope climbing course. Now that is some innovation.
I do hope the entire petting zoo is included with admission. I would hate to see such great exhibits locked behind paywalls.
There was a separate admission charge for the children's zoo back in the 1970s, but it was abolished decades ago. Is charging for entrance to a children's zoo still a thing anywhere? I can't think of a west coast zoo that does it.
Brookfield's "Wild Encounters Children's Zoo" costs an extra $5 to get in, as well as Bronx Zoo's Children's Zoo.
I agree that it is exciting that the new children's zoo is going to be "trying something new" and not do the types of exhibits that are exceedingly common at other children's zoos already, but goats are one thing I wish they kept. I just think that a lot of kids really love how they can pet the goats, or feed them, which is a unique opportunity compared to other zoo animals who are obviously usually more separated from guests than that. That being said, I have not looked at the new plans too carefully so I dont remember if they have a different animal-contact oppurtunity in the new children's zoo. I am sure the new children's zoo will be popular anyway though, and look forward to seeing it after construction is complete.
I can't think of an example from Europe but doesn't St Louis charge for theirs after the first hour of opening?
That is correct. Saint Louis (after the first hour), Bronx and Brookfield all charge separate entrance fees to gain access to their children's zoos. A policy that I am 100% against.
It’s such an odd concept. Wouldn’t it be better to slightly increase the ticket price and allow free access to all guests? I doubt people would even notice much, but it would attract way more visitors into that area.
In St. Louis' case the core zoo is already free, so I don't see why the children's zoo should cost anything more.
