Zoos with the greatest future/best master plans

I believe that both PWP and the Big Cat Sanctuary are really excelling at the moment. I’m yet to visit however I must add that their white lions and tigers have always put me off a little bit, however I must add that I’m unsure of the circumstances surrounding these individuals.

 

As with all zoos, their stance on white lion/tigers seems to have changed over time - Their tiger enclosure re-vamp was intended for the white tiger that they'd sent to the Big Cat Sanctuary, but it was later decided the individual would stay at the sanctuary, and the amur tigers already at PWP would take its place. They released a commendable and transparent statement at the time addressing the situation, mentioning that the decision was made to help align themselves with more modern standards/practices.

 

That’s fair enough, it is a zoo I’d like to get to at some point.

 

Brookfield’s. The more I think about it, the more I hope their last fundraiser make them achieve most of it in the future.

 

That master plan is over a decade old and only one major exhibit from it was completed. Depending on how much (or little) has changed since then, they’re better off writing a new one (although the 2009 plan is fantastic).

 

Unfortunately you are right. They are just better off writing a whole new one. But only based on what they can realistically achieve by 2025-2030. It could be some new concepts and old ones (some staff made it clear that they still want elephants back in some way).

 

Pain, agony, despair.

Three adjectives that apply to me whenever I look at this plan and realize none of it will ever happen.

Brookfield is working on a new master plan so once again this is not longer what the zoo is using as a roadmap going forward. It dates back from 2006 and as @Loxodonta Cobra said, only Great Bear Wilderness was ever completed - 11 years ago. I doubt any major info about the plan will be released any time soon, considering a new director will have to be brought on board and fundraising will need to take place.

 

As mentioned above, I think LA Zoo would really be the best answer to this thread. None of the other master plans go to remotely the same lengths as LA's, which involves them replacing most of the zoo with brand-new state-of-the-art exhibits.

 

It perhaps has the most ambitious masterplan, but that certainly doesn't mean it has the best future necessarily, nor does it mean it has the best masterplan. A good masterplan uses the infrastructure that is already there instead of ripping up the entire zoo, so I think other zoos have a better future, and there are certainly better masterplans out there.

 

They aren’t demolishing the entire zoo, they are keeping their gorilla, South America, California coast exhibits and they are redoing parts of their elephant exhibit. The rest of the zoo is hard to keep because a lot of the exhibits don’t have enough space, they aren’t built in perceivable zones (their just scattered exhibits), and many of the roundhouses the zoo has are poor exhibits in general. It’s also a very different zoo in the sense that it doesn’t have houses or trails to repurpose, the only “house” they have is the nocturnal Australian house and all I know is there will be some sort of new building there, I don’t know if they will redo the old building or build another. But for exhibit buildings that’s generally it. And yet the zoo will still be repurposing their old carousel for part of the Asian section. So the zoo is repurposing what they can so you have to give them credit for that.

 

A lot of the zoo's infrastructure is going to be reused, and the more recent exhibits are being kept, but I don't really see how reuse is a measure of a good master plan. Given that much of what is being replaced was severely outdated, reusing some of it wouldn't remotely make sense. At some point, the 1960's infrastructure has to go, and I don't see why that should be considered a point against them. Furthermore, the zoo is planning to add what amounts to I believe 6 full exhibits, and it is situated in the second-largest metropolitan area in America, and is the only zoo for that area (versus New York City's multiple zoos), so I find it a bit baffling that you think the zoo isn't primed to have a good future.

 

It doesn't necessarily have to go, and tearing it all up is not terribly cost-effective either, particularly if you are going to build the same thing over top of it. Look at Vienna for an extreme example - it has retained most of its infrastructure from the 1800s, yet still manages to have fantastic exhibits. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong, just that this masterplan realistically will not happen, at least not in its entirety, though parts of it could.

So was London, and look what happened there...

I'm not saying LA doesn't have a bright future, I'm sure it does, I just think that the masterplan they've laid out is more wishful thinking than actual substance - I would love for it to happen, just looking at what is planned, but it doesn't appear feasible from a cost perspective in particular but also from a management perspective - ripping up most of the exhibits in the zoo is not a decision taken lightly - where do the animals go in the meantime, where do the visitors go (and will the zoo even be open?) and what will happen to ticket sales etc.

My point was more that saying it has the best masterplan is not necessarily true - I tend to think that more realistic, measured masterplans which take into account previous developments and their cost/time taken to complete are better. But each to their own - I can get excited about massive new developments being announced and the like but realistically the majority of them won't happen.

 

Believe it or not, keeping 1800s infrastructure is a lot easier than keeping 1960s infrastructure. The 1960s in the US are notorious for creating extremely poor infrastructure, with many schools built in the 1960s already being replaced. Not only was the construction poor, many 1960s infrastructure is often cheaper to replace than to renovate. A lot of weird stuff was done back then, such as having the building's boiler completely encased in concrete so that noone can access it (yes- I am talking about something that I know actually happened). So while the old infrastructure is fine, the 1960s infrastructure probably should be replaced.

 

Have you seen the current exhibits at LA zoo? The grottos and mountains are extremely outdated, in comparison to other zoos with old grottos Los Angeles looks the worst. San Diego Zoo’s Dog and Cat canyon was slightly better than the LA grottos and San Diego got rid of those 4 or 5 years ago. Also many of them aren’t in the correct area to create an actual area because of the current mixed layout of the zoo. And the other type of exhibits, the roundhouses, are unfit for most animals. They use an ugly mesh and are too small for any other kind of exhibit or restaurant. You cannot judge the zoo for ripping out half the infrastructure of that infrastructure is no longer fit to be used. If anything we should be glad they aren’t using the old and ugly exhibits, I would hate for any animals to have to live in some of those exhibits ever again.

 

If you look at Vienna, the buildings are attractive and have historical value. The buildings being torn down in LA are from the 1960s, are substandard and unattractive. Much of what is getting replaced consists of tiny roundhouses that simply don't meet modern exhibitry standards. They've already put plenty of lipstick on that pig, and done as much as they could to improve these exhibits from their original form. Frankly, you're really comparing apples to oranges there. As for whether or not the master plan will happen, that's a strange goalpost movement, as specifically the OP asked for "the best plans", not "the best plans that will definitely happen". It's not exactly an industry secret that master plans are blue-sky, and by the time they come to fruition, they'll often radically change. The word "plan" already implies that it may not end up being a reality.

Interesting notion. Cost-wise, yes, it is a bit ambitious. As for your question, "Where do the animals go in the meantime": I don't suppose you know this, but in fact, the LA Zoo just sent their hippopotamuses away, and are choosing to leave their lion and rhinoceros exhibits empty for this exact purpose, though all three are included in their vision plan.

Sure, you're entitled to that opinion, but the original poster says specifically that they're looking for innovation and ambition. Your opinion is valid, but it doesn't fit within the guidelines of the prompt the original post gave, which is what I based my reply off of. By that metric, I don't know of a more valid master plan than Los Angeles' to fulfill the OP's prompt.

 

Perhaps, but it is still harder to incorporate said buildings into an exhibit when they lack all the infrastructure needed to keep an animal exhibit running yet that has been achieved. While I agree that the roundhouses should be torn down, there are other things you can do with pre-existing infrastructure rather than just tear it all down and start anew - where is the long term planning in that? In a couple of decades the new exhibits will be just as much of an eyesore.

Not a goalpost movement at all - by your metric, a tiny zoo saying they'll get in whale sharks, hirolas and vaquitas is a brilliant masterplan...
Having had a thorough look over the LA masterplan, it appears to be more a case of wishful thinking about what could fit in the space they have as opposed to thinking about how they can change what they already have to better work for the animals and visitors. A zoo is a permanently evolving project by its very own nature, but since when did evolution mean tearing everything down and starting again?

 

First of all you can’t compare Los Angeles having an ambitious master plan to a small aquarium trying to get vaquitas, that is almost impossible, whereas this is possible. Yes it’s bold but they aren’t doing anything extremely new and bold with animal choices. And at its current state Los Angeles can’t evolve because it is using the same infrastructure from the 60’s. If they had done this sooner or if they had built the zoo with a section layout instead of the different winding paths all over the zoo. They are reusing infrastructure like their carousel, Australian Nocturnal House, and Asian Elephant exhibit. They are also keeping their gorilla, chimpanzee, langur, part of their elephant, LAIR, and Rainforest of the Americas exhibit. So besides those what other infrastructure should they keep? As I have said the main grottos and pits are ugly and to small for the animals they hold. The zoo is reusing what they can but yes they have to tear up the roundhouses and grottos but those make up most the zoo.

 

Firstly, I never compared LA to such a collection, I said by the metric @Shellheart was using, such a masterplan would be the greatest to ever exist when clearly that is not the case. If Berlin were to casually throw in a couple of blue whales, that wouldn't make it the best masterplan, would it, even though it would if we were to follow the logic used upthread.

Secondly, your claim that there are no 'bold' animal choices is just wrong. If an Asian pangolin species is not bold, what is? That is just one example of a masterplan

The fact that the list of exhibits they are keeping is very short is rather telling, isn't it?

In all seriousness, though, if what you said were true, Tierpark Berlin would be beyond all hope by now, yet is developing quite well in recent times, incidentally by reusing old, 50s and 60s infrastructure like the Alfred Brehm Haus to create something new, innovative and rather pleasant actually, probably more pleasant than had they just knocked the whole thing down. I think perhaps LA should rethink their plan of action, consider the options of what they can do with what they have, solve the problems of having no exhibits until about 15 minutes into the zoo and redo the roundhouses by thinking up something new and innovative to make them into. We both know there is no shortage of innovation on the West coast of the US, so put it use.

 

Re-using old infrastructure though is not necessarily cheaper than tearing it down though. Many buildings built in the 60's are no longer up to code, and the minute any renovations are started on it, they are no ponger grandfathered in. I know this isn't a zoo, but my home town is currently building a new high school. Our current high school was built in the 1960s. A few years they calculated how much they would need to spend just to do the necessary renovations (replacing heating, fixing structural issues, etc.) and in their research found it to be substantially cheaper to build a new school right next to the current one. In what condition is Los Angeles Zoo's infrastructure? They could easily be in the same boat where it is cheaper to tear it down and start from scratch.

 

The counterpoint is any number of examples I can think of, not least the Tate Modern over here in London which has gone from quite the eyesore to one of London's largest attractions, much as I may dislike the place. I must however say that the way it was fixed up and used is quite striking and so I can understand why it has become a kind of 'staple' to any trip to London.

Either way, it is down to the zoo itself what it does with its space, I just disagree that the LA zoo's masterplan is automatically best because of its rather lofty ambitions while other zoos take a more realistic approach, that is all.