San Diego Zoo The future of the zoo

With Africa Rocks completed and the children's zoo upgrade on the horizon, what else do you envision as the next steps for the zoo?

 

I would like to see Urban Jungle developed into a savannah.

I would also like the area across the road from the raptors to be, at the least, updated. I rather it be developed into new exhibits.

Also, an updated Bear canyon.

 

The marsh or the empty yards?

 

Both. I think it’s time for an update and slight expansion in the area.

 

Urban Jungle is an embarrassment for this otherwise world class zoo. When they removed Horn and Hoof Mesa, I felt they should have gotten rid of giraffes and made them a keystone species at the Safari Park. Instead they crammed them into a tiny paddock in Urban Jungle that is even worse than their former (decades old) exhibit.

I still stand by my original statement that it would be best to have giraffes at Safari Park only (which might give more visitors a reason to venture up there). However if they insist on keeping giraffes at the zoo, which it appears they do, then I think the only satisfactory solution is to do what @timmychompchomp suggests and use the entire mesa for a single savanna exhibit with giraffes and whatever else you want to put in there.

 

The Safari Park has always been about different experiences, not different species. When the vast majority of people come to a zoo, they expect to see the ABC species and the SD zoo needs to cater to that. Girrafes will always remain and they should be put in a savana.

 

I'm in agreement with AD. The Zoo and Safari Park are meant to have complementary collections, and I truly don't think that giraffes are necessary at both. In my opinion, adding a savanna exhibit to the zoo also feels like a waste. I can't imagine that the Urban Jungle area is big enough to attempt anything but a rather mediocre savanna exhibit, and it'd be nice to break away from the "every zoo needs a savanna" idea.

 

Maybe exhibit the giraffes in a woodland setting? And open up viewing on some of the perimeter areas? That way you can view them somewhat from AR, and the giraffes could hypothetically look down upon the vervets and the leopards.

 

Urban Jungle is one of my most disliked exhibits in any American zoo. Incorrect geographical placement really gets my blood boiling, and in this category the exhibit excels. Where else can you find giraffes, Indian rhinos, arctic wolves and red kangaroos in the same exhibit area?

As far as what to do with it, a savannah would perhaps be the most logical. Though the zoo would have to do something different with it. Picture a mid-sized savannah with giraffes, zebras and gazelle's, with a feeding deck, and maybe a side exhibit for cheetahs or hyenas. The unique part? Maybe a massive overview of Africa Rocks from the peak of the top, and even a massive moving walkway that can take you there. To take it a step further, make it so parts of the yard can be viewed from the moving walkway. Add a restaurant and sprinkle some restrooms and boom, I'd take it.

 

How can the “geographical placement” be “incorrect” if the exhibit doesn’t claim to represent a specific place? Do reptile houses make your blood boil as well?

 

That's the real issue I have with the area, there is no theme. It an odd mix of large mammals in dusty yards, small mammals in medal cages and birds scattered about. Reptile houses have a theme, to represent reptiles of the world, but Urban Jungle just does not make any sense.

 

As much as I would hope that visitors of the zoo would venture up the 15 to the Safari Park it is apparent that travelers to San Diego do not do this on a normal basis. Attendance numbers are obviously one sided. With that, it’s fairly necessary to house Giraffes at the zoo. I believe they would get complaints if they didn’t. I could also see people getting angry that it was a money grab.

A savanna is the best way to display plains species nowadays, especially from a PR stand point in California. The larger the exhibit, the better people feel about animals in captivity. The closer to a natural environment the better for everyone, including the animals involved.

With all that being said, I dont feel that the Urban Zoo is ideal for a savanna type exhibit, but the best spot, EO, is already taken. All I know is that the Urban Zoo is a lame gimmicky area currently and needs updating. If it’s Urban Zoo, I would build a mock city block or suburban street and feature animal we coexist with in North America. That would be sort of cool and educational. Black bear, raccoon, mule deer, possum, all sorts of rodents, spiders, lizards, and snakes. I’m sure there are more.

 

Re: Giraffes.

This reminds me of the Berlin Tierpark vs. the zoo. Both are actually quite the same to the untrained eye, with the only real difference being one has tigers and one has lions. However, you would never here such a thing in San Diego. The Zoo provides a more condensed "urban" experienced with animals all over the world. The Safari Park provides a more open interactive Experience with less species, mainly those from Africa.

 

I would like to see San Diego add a south American pampas section as I bet with all the money they have, they could build amazing exhibits for a not well known area.

 

This is a comparison between urban jungle and the African Watering hole at the Baltimore zoo which contains rhinos, zebras and ostriches. They are roughly the same size and I never felt the watering hole was inadequate. Would it be too small to add giraffes to such a sized area?

 

If San Diego Zoo wants to expand I think that they need to modernize more of their older exhibits. I personally dislike Eagle Trail and I am kind of happy its closed temporarily. They could turn that into the South American Ecosystems. The first could be Wetlands and that could house Giant Otters, Piranhas, Caimans, Jaguars, a Wetland Aviary and more. Then comes the Jungle. That would house Squirrel Monkeys, Spider Monkeys, Howler Monkeys, Marmosets and Tamarins, King Vultures, Harpy Eagles, Andean Condors, an aviary, and more. Then comes the Grasslands which would house Maned Wolves, Rheas, and Guanacos. Finally, kind of like Africa Rocks penguins. I also think that the Urban Jungle could be split up. Make the giraffe exhibit into part of an expansion of the Asian Passage. Also make the Asian Passage into something like Africa Rocks. Indian Plains with Rhinos, Malaysian Jungles with Sun Bears and Silver Leaf Langurs, Japanese Mountains with Salamanders, Macaques, Serrow and an Aviary, and Siberian Forest with Amurs and Eagles. The otherside of the Urban Jungle could be an extension of the Australian Outback Singing Dogs, Little Penguins, Freshwater Crocodiles, and where the Rhinos were a Lorikeet Aviary. I also think that Elephnat Odyssey is nice but its useless to explain the Pleistocene. All guests want to see is Elephants and Lions. So why not split it in half. One side will be the Asian Flood lands where Asian Elephants and maybe Axis Deer live. The other side could be 2 large Savannah yards one with elephants other hoofstock the others with Rhinos and more. Finally, I think that the Northern Frontier should be redone. It looks kind of outdated and they have some room to expand into a small desert zone. I personally feel like that would help the zoo and also it would add more species

 

I agree, I personally think a native species exhibit might actually be a better use of the space available in Urban Jungle. I like the idea of theming it after a city, but it might be a bit too out there, seeing as people already freak out about the theming of EO, another out-of-the-box theme might be overkill. That said, native species exhibits are apparently the highest rated in guest surveys, even driving the "nearby" LA Zoo to plan a massive California themed exhibit to be built in the next 20 years. If they were able to somehow incorporate a Bear Canyon remodel into it to make one large exhibit, there's a lot of room to make a 1st class native species exhibit rather than a 2nd class savanna.

Now as for the plains species, that's where I reach a dilemma. The Zoo still has a lot of hoofstock in the Northern Frontier area that they wouldn't just drop from their collection, but I see that area being even less useful than the accursed Urban Jungle! EO really is by far the best spot on the entire map for a savanna, and there's already plenty of African species in the area. If it weren't for the group of (mostly) Asian elephants that won't be going anywhere any time soon, and the fact that EO isn't that old, I'd be in support of redeveloping that. Right now it just seems unfeasible. It's rather dissatisfying, because Urban Jungle is the best area for a savanna at this time, but it's far from the best place for it.

 

I believe there was (is) talk of a master plan for Balboa Park that will add a central parking garage and free up the zoo parking lot for more exhibits. This would certainly provide the space for a nice savanna.

I really like your idea of a native California exhibit in Urban Jungle. I would love to see it with an improved mountain lion habitat. I was disappointed when they built the new exhibit by the Skyfari terminal and it was no bigger than their old Cat Canyon exhibit.

 

The parking lot would actually be the perfect location, since the terrain is already flat, unlike the rest of the zoo, where significant work has to be done on most planned exhibits. I seem to recall a central parking garage being planned at some point as well. I hope that plan hasn't been abandoned.

And it's funny you mention the mountain lion habitat, as that was exactly what I was thinking, a new, better mountain lion habitat could be built in Urban Jungle, and the other exhibit can go to some other, more fitting species.

 

The master plan has really been abandoned. None of it is being planned to be implanted.