Zoos with the greatest future/best master plans

It makes me happy to see zoos, especially large ones, going back to the geographical areas. Biomes are all well and good, but many/most people don't have much of an idea about where animals live to be able to put the global aspect into perspective. It gives people the false idea that these animals actually live in the same area, where the might really be worlds apart.

 

Ok I feel like I keep repeating myself so I will say it all for the last time. Los Angeles is in Southern California, where the climate is similar to many of the habitats of the species they hold. In Southern Californian zoos we don't use building we just have exhibits: no cat houses, no primate houses, only nocturnal houses or reptile houses. So they can only refurbish their nocturnal house (which they are doing) and their Reptile house which was updated a few years ago.
The closest thing we have to "houses" are the roundhouse which are slowly deteriorating and no longer fit the needs of their inhabitants. Also many of the roundhouse exhibits are on the current path and you cannot make a trail or contious stretch of path to create an exhibit in this zoo without ripping out half of the current infrastructure. The zoos paths wind and split multiple times, in such a way that when I was young my family would get lost in the zoo. It just is not possible to update the zoo to be easier to navigate without destroying half the zoo.
Even if you can't take my word for it take a look at these exhibits for yourself. Read the comments, one of them brings up how Roundhouses were already built because of budget cuts.
Los Angeles Zoo - C-Shaped Serval Exhibit - ZooChat
Mandrill exhibit - ZooChat
Sclater's Blue-eyed Lemur exhibit - ZooChat

 

Do you seriously think there is no more to LAZ than a load of grottos and roundhouses? Even if there are relatively few buildings for visitors or for the animals, there is masses of infrastructure all over the place! If you go to the utility infrastructure page (31) on the vision plan, it is clear to see that the place is littered with buildings, not just roundhouses. It may appear as if there are no large buildings, but I'm afraid it isn't true, and practically all these buildings would have to go.

Either way, this has got out of hand. I was just saying that Shellheart's assumption that LAZ's masterplan is the best is far from the truth, much as I, and I'm sure many others, would love it to be considering the state of the zoo nowadays.

 

I agree and have the same preference about geographical areas above biomes.

However, there's one major negative aspect on that view : if you want to present f.e. a rainforest, then you have to choose in what geographical area you want to built it. Very few zoos can afford expensive rainforest buildings in all their major geographical areas. So they have to choose, and choosing is losing in terms of species. Some zoos do this very acurate: Masoala at Zurich Zoo, Monsoon forest at Chester Zoo, Asia hall at Planckendael. But even this major zoos have not three rainforest buildings.

So the risk is having too many one direction themed rainforest exhibits, and very often this is and will be the Southamerican Amazon rainforest (probably because this looks like the prototype of a rainforest for many visitors). The negative consequences of this are, amongst other things, the overrepresentation of the same species. And the fact that certain geographical areas are underrepresented: f.e. I know very few equatorial African rainforest buildings in Europe.

On the other hand, Burger's Zoo in the Netherlands is doing extremely well with it's biome-themed lay out.

So most geographical-themed zoos keep also some biomes like large rainforest buildings, Reptile houses, Aquarium, where they can show species from all over the world.

Having said this: everything I wrote above is from the point of view of a European living in a slightly colder climate zone where zoo buildings are essential.