This may be controversial, but I want to know your opinions on why people think the San Diego Zoo is so famous. Most people say that the San Diego Zoo and the Bronx Zoo are the best zoos in the US. I think that this is particularly interesting, since I see both zoos in very different ways, and while both are incredible zoos, neither is my favorite out of all the zoos that I have been to. I think that the Bronx zoo (and all WCS zoos) focus a lot more on immersive and naturalistic exhibits, and donate a lot more money to wildlife projects. The Bronx Zoo is a lot more science oriented. I feel like while it has a lot of the big popular animals, it also has SO many of the smaller animals that casual guests dont really care about. In my opinion, the San Diego zoo is very different. Obviously, the san diego zoo does do a lot of conservation, and great things for animals all over the world, and a lot of science with the frozen zoo, but it is also very different from the bronx zoo. I think it is much more guest oriented than the bronx zoo is, in that it has all the big animals. Also, many are in not so good exhibits, such as urban jungle with the rhinos, cheetahs, and giraffes, or the lions in EO. Also, every big area in the zoo has a themed restaurant and a gift shop. My favorite zoo I have been to is the national zoo, since I think they combine all these aspects in really nice ways. Some of this may be generalizations, and inaccurate, or just my opinion, but it is something that I think about a lot, and wanted to know what other people thought about it, especially people who have been to many more zoos than I have.
Primarily conservation initiatives, bot captive and in the wild. Also, at one time they housed animals that just could not be seen anywhere else in the country. This is still the case with some animals, but increasingly less due to captive breeding initiatives started in the 90s and early 2000s. They pioneered exhibit design for many animals, and still have fantastic multi-species exhibits, probably the best in the country.
Short answer San Diego was fantastically savvy and successful at branding and marketing in the 60s and beyond. They "owned" the idea of Great Zoo in the public mind. Whether they earned it or not.
If I were to venture a guess I'd say it's likely that location is part of its continued success. San Diego itself is the 8th largest city in America,the zoo is centrally located,it's close to other attractions like SeaWorld and their very own Safari Park,it's got a fairly sized international airport,it's 3-4 hours (depending on how lucky you are with the traffic) from L.A.,Anaheim,Disneyland,etc. It's not in the middle of nowhere,it's not 30 minutes from San Diego,it's literally right there next to downtown,so it's not a massive side trip. (And to be fair their wealth of bird species is either unparalleled or nearly so,but that's most definitely not what makes them stand out to the common zoogoer). As for the restaurant and gift shop thing you mention,I think that's just a tourist attraction thing.
This thread, from a while back, posed a similar question: San Diego Zoo - What´s So Great About San Diego Zoo?. Some gone-but-not-forgotten posters feature heavily: Dan, from Sweden, was the originator of the thread.
Bronx doesn't just donate to conservation project, they're owned by a conservation group and directly carry out conservation project and several species in the collection (such as Maleo and Kihansi Spray Toad) are either exclusively worked with by them or have been saved directly by them. ~Thylo
1. The collection focuses on both the popular species that zoo audiences want to see (koalas, pandas, elephants, gorillas, etc.) and unusual species that zoo nerds salivate about seeing (kagus, Tasmanian devils, etc.). 2. Location, location, location. It's a zoo with good weather most of the year. It is huge and has a lot of animals. It is in a tourist destination city with many other attractions (Sea World, Legoland, beaches, etc.). 3. Marketing, marketing, marketing. As Zooplantman said this zoo has been proclaiming itself "world famous" for a century now and has made it a reality both on marketing hype and substance. The Wild Animal Park is a truly spectacular facility. The zoo has an amazing collection.
As I've been to all three of the zoos you've mentioned at least twice I feel I can give a pretty good answer. The Bronx Zoo is a masterpiece of immersion exhibits and with a few exceptions (polar bear exhibit, Mouse House, Aquatic Bird House, Zoo Center, Carter Giraffe Building) almost all of the exhibits are naturalistic, modern and among the best of their kind. The zoo is set in a forest-like atmosphere, with the prominent animal habitats largely in clearings. There are also a robust amount of buildings at the zoo too. While it has been around since 1899, the vast majority of Bronx's exhibits (including most considered to be its best) were build under the tenure of legendary zoo director William Conway and it is really his genius that made the zoo excellent. One thing I especially appreciate about Bronx is the specificness of the habitats recreated and the scope of which they recreate them rather than just capture a vague sense of what a visitor imagines them to be- whether the Himalayas (Himalayan Highlands), Ethiopian steppe (Baboon Reserve), a Southeast Asian Rainforest (JungleWorld), a forest in Russia (Tiger Mountain), grasslands/woods of India (Wild Asia), bush of Madagascar (Madagascar), East African savanna woodland (African Plains) or a Central African rainforest (Congo Gorilla Forest). These exhibits are very much driven about immersing visitors into the habitat of the animals and they are almost entirely undisturbed by commercialism or parts of a zoo guest experience that might be unnatural(although some like CGF and Tiger Mountain bring guests unprecedently close to the species.) One thing that really stands out is a large emphasis is put on education both about the animals/habitats and the conservation threats they face. However, while I think this is an ideal way to have a zoo, some visitors might not think so. The zoo in general puts representing the natural world and using umbrella species of ecosystems above displaying all the ABC animals and some marquee species are missing (hippos, chimps, orangutans, most South American and Australian species and soon I'm afraid elephants and polar bears.) It makes some species not usually considered superstars (snow leopards, baboons, lemurs, etc.) the backbone of exhibit complexes and some key species (elephants, rhinos) can only be seen on a monorail in the Asian section. Also, it is VERY hard to see all of the zoo in one day since the amount of exhibit complexes is quite immense. The property is huge and requires lots of walking, with many exhibits in corners. Finally, the zoo has become much more stagnant since Conway retired and while most of the exhibits are excellent few are new. San Diego has a drastically different feel and history. The zoo has been well-known since at least the 30s and world famous since the 1950s. While most tourists would never go out to the Bronx to see the zoo while in New York since it is over-shined by the city's other attractions, the San Diego Zoo is a prime tourist destination even for visitors who have minimal interests with animals. A lot of San Diego Zoo's fame comes from television appearances, celebrity visitors and high-profileness that comes from being the most well-known attraction in the sunny southern California city. Another major reason for San Diego's fame is the amount of breeding success at the zoo and innovations found through conservation and research. San Diego is less than half the size of Bronx in land area and is much more compact and open in feeling. It literary feels like exhibits are everywhere and they often lead into each other. The property is dominated by canyons and mesas, making it hard for single complexes to expand a large area as they do in Bronx. The vegetation is lush and a large portion of the zoo can be viewed by a double-decker bus. There also are many more restaurants, gift shops, shows, rides, etc. at San Diego and they are found in much closer proximity to the animals than they are at Bronx. One of the unique features of the zoo is the large walkthrough aviaries. Like Bronx, San Diego has a number of biome-related exhibits although for a lot of the head to heads I prefer Bronx's exhibit (gorillas, tigers.) The majority of these are tropical rainforest habitats from Africa and Asia and they are mostly superbly done. African Kopje, Australian Outback and Polar Plunge are threeo major exhibits which showcase habitats other than rainforest. All the exhibits at San Diego are very accessible and generally on main paths, unlike Bronx where several aren't (Tiger Mountain, Congo Gorilla Forest, JungleWorld, Wild Asia). There are also no entrance fees for habitats like they are at Bronx. Conservation is valued at San Diego but not given as much of an explicit focus and easier to tune out. Some of the complexes (Elephant Odyssey, Reptile Mesa) go for themes that are not geographical. Compared to Bronx, San Diego has many more subpar exhibits, particularly in Bear Canyon and Urban Jungle. These are hodgepodges of popular animals in sterile old enclosures. Unlike Bronx, San Diego will keep marquee animals in subpar exhibits rather than phase them out (moving giraffes to Elephant Mesa being a prime example.) However, the zoo is quickly modernizing its weak areas and has much more promising future plans than Bronx.
The National Zoo is an interesting case because it has some brilliant exhibits (especially Asia Trail and America Trail) but also plenty of badly outdated ones (Great Apes.) I think it does a good job at focusing on education and conservation like Bronx but does not reach the same level of quality throughout its grounds (at least not yet.)
What set the San Diego Zoo apart from others I've been to was mainly their environment. Yes many zoos double as botanical gardens, but walking through the San Diego zoo feels like walking a tropical jungle, with many endangered and exotic plants just being scenery. Their use of hills with their exhibits creates many unique exhibits with many unique species, for instance their aviary and bird areas. And while they do appeal with panda and koala, they have an amazing collection of animals with rarities representing a very wide selection of animals. What they lack the Safari Park picks up, which on it's own is one of the better zoos I've seen.
In my honest opinion I think that the San Diego zoo is so famous because before they had animals you couldn't see anywhere else. They now have some of the largest animal enclosures I've seen, and they have one of the highest breeding records in history. Still after all of these years they have possibly the largest variety of animals in a zoo in the world in my opinion. Let's not forget about their safari park which is also amazing and the fact that San Diego is one of the zoological societies to have two places open to the public
I agree that their zoo is amazing, and their safari park is far far more amazing, but in my opinion many of the exhibits at the zoo (not at the safari park) are kind of too small.
