Why do zoo exhibits cost so much?

It's a not-especially big island and a not-especially big house. Most of the side exhibits are either basic mesh constructions or very slightly altered exhibits that were already there from the old Sobell Pavilions.

I'd be quite prepared to believe there were logistical reasons for the cost (drainage works, that kind of thing) that you don't see in the final product but which have bumped the cost up, but I don't think the final product looks like it cost the money, and that's one of the reasons it gets stick. Chester's £3.7m Orang house and Edinburgh's £5.65m Chimp house (yes I did look those up!) are far superior, and both are much more impressive and animal-friendly structures for comparable, or less, money.

 

Your right, Australia lacks really cool birds because we can't import them. My point was aimed at stating that we should exhibit more variety of what we can import, currently in Aust. we have so little variety in what we exhibit, so maybe if so much wasn't spent on an elephant exhibit we could get more brown bears or Jaguars, Pumas, More primates.

But this is not the thread to continue this discussion.

 

Sorry...one more point: in general design costs are kept at around 10% of construction cost.

 

Well, Gaiapark in Kerkrade (Netherlands) was built for 20 million euro's(opened 2005), including a nice gorilla island and a big savannah, in total 80 species were exhibited when it opened.

 

Ah so some smart ZooChatter can give us an answer perhaps.

If Gaiapark gorilla exhibit cost 1.2million Euro for an exhibit that is just under 10,000sq m,
And London's exhibit, at 6ooo sq m cost the equivalent of 6.2million Euro: It seems that London has more theming..but is there much really? Neither design was "in-house". Neither did a lot of landscaping (big trees, etc); then the difference is in the building(s) and cost of construction

The Gaiapark exhibit is described on Zoolex (ZooLex Exhibit )
So does anyone have more information on the size of London's holding areas? A drawing would be nice to compare to the Gaiapark drawing.

 

and 10% of $30,000,000 is $3,000,000 which in my personal opinion is way too much. To use taronga's ele's as an example. I could build a whole zoo (basic but still what the public want to see in terms of some animals for $3,000,000

 

@Jarkari: you state that you could possibly build "a whole zoo" for $3 million, but these days that would get you a small cafe, a gift shop and maybe some toilets.

 

From what l have seen. Allot of the gorilla buildings at ZSL were converted from existing. The Gorilla public indoor is new but all the others as you walk through on the left are converted from existing.

 

I didn't say it would be a fancy zoo it is very much doable. Asmall cafe doe not cost $3,000,000 and that is my point. I have been involved in the building and operation of a number of cafes and they rangd from $75,000 to $250,000 to get operational(the $75,000 one just sold for $1.2 million) which just proves my point more.

It is defnately doable. some of the best facilities I have seen cost barely anything in comparison to some major zoo exhibits.

 

@Jarkari...if you have the $3million, give me a call!

You can't duck design fees. New buildings require architects and engineers, new exhibits require landscape architects and civil engineers. In many locales this is required by law and these professionals need to be properly registered/accredited.

 

cleveland zoo is building a new elephant exhibit which is supposed to be state of the art for over 20 million....alot of money for an exhibit that houses only elephants and some smaller species.....I always wondered why zoos don't just use large, wide open areas to house multiple species that are found together in the wild....the KC zoo is a decent example....

 

2 impressive "cheap" enclosures are HWP's polar bear enclosure @ around £80'000 and Banham zoo's Amur tiger enclosure, at around the same price tag, 2 excellent enclosures for their inhabitants.
And it has just struck me, you can keep the costs down by sticking with the name enclosure after the species name, rather than some over the top grandiose name.

 

I've always thought Banham's Siberian Tiger enclosure was arguably the best in a UK zoo(I haven't seen the HWP one)- it is very simple but encompasses a very large area with varied terrain, even a little woodland.

But most major Zoos don't seem happy with a big new exhibit nowadays unless it has a very high price tag they can feature in their publicity for it.

 

As I've said before, SD and LA have very expensive construction costs, plus SD and I believe LA both had to demolish developed property which adds to the cost. SD's cost also consists of the many other exhibits surrounding the elephant one, a restuarant, and a state of the art elephant care center.

 

You bring up an interesting point. A simple enclosure...with varied and beautiful terrain...for a magnificent or interesting or lovely animal just isn't enough in 2010 for the general public. Or so it seems. Such simple and intimate experiences are losing ground to other cultural forces.

Some have posted that zoos that want to build these mega exhibits for their own ego. That may be so...or not. But we should also recognize that the public is focused on 3-D movies, i-Pads, Twitter, American Idol, So You Think You Can Fart, etc. It's not to say that a well done butterfly exhibit or marsh bird aviary can't succeed, but more and more if it ain't Hollywood the public ain't coming. And that is why zoos build new exhibits. No other reason. To get the public to come.

Banham's tiger exhibit (judging from pictures in the Gallery here) is nice enough but it would not increase attendance by any appreciable amount. (And I think I like the look of Minnesota Zoo's better.)

Why do so few well crafted indie movies succeed financially? Perhaps because the theaters know that the public shows up for "Iron Man 2". And in 2 weeks, no will even be going to that anymore.

So getting back to Lion Man's initial post, perhaps the answer is that today zoo's are businesses that must make their own way and to do that they build what they have come to feel the public wants. The next Hollywood blockbuster. And it is happening all over the planet.

Just a thought...

 

very much so, I think, at least in many instances....

 

Your reall not getting my point. I said it is doable. . . I know contractors that are laughing with the amount of money they make from zoos in Australia. Stupid amounts of money are spent.

Cairns wildlife Safari reserve was initially built for around $5,000,000 including the purchase of the animals such as hippo, rhino, pygmy hippo, importation of a variety of animals. . . I know it is possible.

 

Yep, and then followed in a few short years with vast amounts of money, blood sweat and tears to rebuild the dodgy enclsoures, fix the rusting fences and foundations, and make the place reasonably safe for animals, staff and visitors.

You can build a zoo for $3 mil, but in this world, you get what you pay for - quite likely something pretty second rate, small, and not all that safe for all concerned. I'm not saying that tens of millionds of dollars is required for exhibits, but you certainly need to (or should be) spending a half-decent amount if you want to build something workable, that will last.

 

I am quite sure there are a couple of ZAA accredited establishments that would have a net replacement value of around this figure, or even below it.

Whilst I agree with the "you get what you pay for" sentiment - I think as a blanket statement it is unfair on smaller establishments which do not have to be pretty to be serviceable for their inhabitants and guests alike.

 

Agreed. Also with one of our major zoos... twpz in Australia would be constructed for a very low price in comparison. and it is a very highly regarded zoo. it is the newer fancy enclosures like the rhino and otters that cost a fortune and even take away from the zoo.