I suppose your right. This area and the urban jungle I feel are a few random clusters of animals. At least EO has a concept unlike UJ.
it's like Cincinnati's hippo pond. If the execution had been what they were promising originally everyone would probably have being saying how good it was. But instead, from the photos and videos I've seen, it is the same pokey little nonsense they seem to provide for all their exhibits.
I'm not surprised Personally I'd be tempted to wonder what the point of visiting the zoo is if you don't actually *care* about what you are looking at, only the opportunity at that precise moment for a photograph. You might as well save money and take photographs of buildings and landscapes around you - or if you only want photographs of animals, the wildlife in your area - rather than paying for the privilege of going to a zoo you don't care about seeing. If you ignore an exhibit when there isn't an opportunity for a photograph, you miss the pleasure of waiting for an opportunity, knowing when it arrives and then taking it which to me would be the greater part of the overall sense of achievement at the end of the day. Only caring about the "quick-fix" of those animals who happen to be presenting themselves in a way that suits you at the precise moment that you pass their exhibit strikes me as a little empty.... maybe even lazy.
May I ask what was originally promised? When the unfortunate plans came out in 2014, the finishing product was almost exactly as portrayed in the renderings.
I'm pretty sure you know exactly what the original plans were like, whereas I would have to go back through all the history and find out, but for one the play area was by all accounts a secondary addition which reduced the actual exhibit area by a considerable margin.
Well I also visit different zoos because I have a slight passion for architecture. In fact that's why I went to Art school originally was to one day aspire to be a habitat designer. The San Diego Zoo is the perfect place to go to find inspiration for designs. I'd might also defend... I mean add that if I want to consider myself a professional photographer one day, I prefer to have a diverse portfolio. This includes different animals, different angles, different lighting, settings, and more I can't think of at the moment. Here in Cincy, I'm at my limit with success - meaning I don't believe I can get any more greater shots than I already have. In San Diego, the zoo helped a lot, especially with their diverse bird collection. I was also with my mother on my San Diego visit, so waiting around for 20 minutes trying to get a good shot at one spot would've caused an unnecessary but reasonable fight
To me, the exhibit turned out just as small as it was portrayed in the drawings. I don't think it was intended to be any bigger. To make room for the pointless play area, it appears they just pushed back the hippo exhibit rather than reduced it's size.
perhaps. I'd rather go with Kudu21 here - http://www.zoochat.com/556/hippo-cove-play-area-455000/#post974410 - who I would trust better to know what is what, when they say "This last minute addition to the project cut the size of the exhibit in at least half, essentially." In any case, most people would probably agree that it was a lot of money "wasted" in terms of what it should have been for that money.
I'll try not to put words in his mouth but it possibly could've meant that the zoo was going to try to go away from the plans and give the entire space between the edge of the attraction and the meerkats to the hippos. Or he could've been referring to the attachment below, which was the actual original plan for the last phase of Africa.
As for Elephant Odyssey, I don't think one could say it was a waste of money when, while the design is not everyone's taste, it did what it asked for reasonably well: provided elephants (probably the zoo's most popular animal) a decent home that is spacious and enriching and an area the visitors love. And it would be hard to argue the elephant enclosure isn't better than any exhibit in Hoof and Horn Mesa. As impressive as the collection was, the truth is the area was badly outdated and needed to go. The exhibits were barren and small and it was quite the eyesore. I think a waste of money in zoo exhibits is much better defined as one where what the exhibit adds to animal welfare and the visitor experience doesn't offset how the money spent on it prevents future exhibits. For instance, a classic example of this is the Tropical Rainforest at the Franklin Park Zoo which cost a staggering $26 million in 1989. The exhibit isn't all that great and the gorillas don't even have outdoor access but the expense of the exhibit has hurt the zoo for decades and if you've been to the zoo you've seen the poverty there.
While I agree Elephant Odyssey at San Diego provided the elephants a better home, I do NOT agree that it is an area visitors love. I never see people lingering there. When it first opened I overheard a woman saying "there's like no trees," a problem that has not and apparently will not be remedied. For a zoo the caliber of San Diego, EO is an absolute disgrace. I do acknowledge that it provides a needed service by offering an AZA accredited retirement home for aging elephants, but as a member and visitor it is a letdown of mammoth proportions (pun intended).
I think the original poster (pachyderm pro) is rather mixing two different issues (disappointment and cost), but so my interpretation of his question was more to do with the former than the latter, given that he opens it with "hyped up" and "let down", while "money" just seems tossed in at the end. ("Does anyone know any zoos that Hyped up a new exhibit so so much... and is was ultimintely a giant let down, and a huge waist of money?"). Although, granted, his thread title is specifically about cost. So my impression of Elephant Odyssey (note, without ever having seen it in person) is that it certainly was massively hyped up and then, despite being what I would consider to be a brilliant concept, completely failed to deliver on that concept in anything more than a somewhat abstract way and in an unattractive and confusing fashion for visitors. Was it "a waste of money"? I wouldn't like to say that as an unqualified statement, but it could have been so so much better in pretty much every way. A better way to phrase it would be that the money could probably have been used in a much more productive manner. I'm not sure that anyone really thinks it is bad because it replaced the Horns and Hooves Mesa, just that that replacement was so poorly executed.
Shouldn't the Indianapolis Orang exhibit not feature in this thread. Just as possibly also the whole new Wildlands zoo. Another contender would be the large renovation of the Alfred Brehm house, of which I really don't have a clue where all that money was spent on, but certainly not on improving animal welfare...
and now it's not The initial post was started with mentioning how USA zoos spend millions, but then it asked about zoos in a more general sense. So I decided to move it to General so everyone can discuss.
I think the biggest wastes of money tend to be new enclosures to 'conserve' endangered animals that are over-represented in zoos and are not part of a reintroduction programme. For these animals, it would be spend millions conserving the species in the wild. Another waste of money tends to involve designers who know little about the behaviour of the species concerned. A classic example are massive lion enclosures. Wild lions tend to spend 20 hours a day resting and are most active during the night when they hunt. Captive lions tend to be most active when the zoo is closed and they don't need to hunt at all, so don't need a massive enclosure. Many visitors don't realise this, but I think they would prefer to see lions in a smaller enclosure, rather than seeing resting lions from a long distance. I remember reading that the Highland Wildlife Park spent £85 developing an enclosure for Pallas's cats. I would prefer to see zoos being economical with exhibits, rather than spending millions on enclosures for over-represented species, especially when this leads to a reduction in the number of species kept in the zoo.
I think the Zoo must be held equally responsible for the ultimate appearance/size of an enclosure- the designer works to a brief of what the zoo wants. You cite the case of Lions- similarly many forest-dwelling Primates particularly Gorillas, are given very costly large open outdoor areas, often with water moats seperating them from the public, which they use only a limited amount (unless forced to do so by being shut outside) because they prefer a covered environment.
I would label the whole remade Emmen Zoo as a worthy contender... As for US zoos: does anyone else remember when in 2009 LA Zoo tried to get Golden Snub nosed monkeys, built an expensive exhibit (including a Feng Shui makeover) and got-nothing? At least their Francois' langurs now have a pricey home. ^^ L.A. zoo needs new simians after monkey snub - Technology & science - Science | NBC News LA zoo wanted Chinese snub-nosed monkeys. Instead it got a Chinese snub | The Independent
Hello Pertinax I agree with you about the gorillas. I think there is a big problem with many zoos spending lots of money on enclosures for species that visitors expect to see, rather than trying to encourage visitors to be interested in species they didn't expect to see. This is especially strange when many books and TV programmes include species that were ignored a few years ago. Zoos should follow suit. I was pleased a few years ago when I visited Prague Zoo and saw several signposts pointing towards the new gharial enclosure. I hope that this has helped people become more interested in a species that is not an ABC species.
