Over time, zoos’ physical forms have been a direct reflection of our society’s values and understanding of science. It is important to understand where we’ve been in order to move forward, and its is also important for visitors to the older zoos to understand why certain buildings and exhibits are the way they are (as we know, zoos usually do not have an abundance of money, and struggle to keep their physical state up with the trends).
Zoos, in the form we know them now, have been in existence since the mid-18th century. Prior to this, private collections existed throughout the world as far back, it is believed, to Mesopotamian times. Romans kept animals, of course, for sport, but would display the animals in a zoo-like manner, prior to their being released to their deaths in the Coliseum. But we’ll focus on the mid-19th century forward.
We can easily divide the eras in zoo design into three general categories:
- Zoos as Jails (mid 19th to late 19th century)
- Zoos as Art Galleries OR the Modernist Movement (early to mid 20th century)
- Zoos as Conservation and Education Facilities
Zoos as Jails
This was the Age of Enlightenment and the Romantic Age, where beauty was of the upmost value and our understanding the natural world was just becoming a science. Science in this time was all about classification and comparison. Linneaus and Darwin were the scientific stars. The earliest official zoos started now, with the London Zoo in 1828 and Philadelphia Zoo in 1874. The early zoos were based on the mission of science for science’s sake, but also were places for socializing.
As such, a balance between beauty and classification was struck. The zoos of this time were laid out by families, and the term “House” came to being, as in Cat House, Bird House, etc. The architectural style was over the top beautiful. Highly ornate bird cages, and buildings themed in the most dramatic fashion were everywhere. But, cages were small, animals were short lived and people enjoyed the animals as beautiful pieces rather than living beings.
Zoos as Art Galleries OR the Modernist Movement
During this time, the world was experiencing several wars. The study of nature became much less important, but Romanticism still existed. Science progressed into problem solving, and medical advances were abundant. Vaccinations became prevalent and the idea of killing germs to increase health and extend life expentency came into being.
During this time, zoos held a similar value as art galleries, and the exhibits became mini-paintings and sculptures. In the Romantic movement, a proper landscape exists with a foreground, mid-ground, and background. Carl Hagenbeck applied this theory first, and created the firstever barless (moated) exhibit. His desire was more to create this Romantic living landscape, like the famous painters of this time, than to recreate nature for moral sensitivities. This style obviously caught on, but generally became popular much later.
Additionally, the modernist movement was catching fire. Modernism requires that form follow function. This belief along with the advances in medicine and desire for sterilization, created zoo exhibits that were easily hosed down and cleaned regularly. This meant concrete everywhere. Additionally, the Modernist Art scene infiltrated zoo design, and the hardlines and simplification modernist style is famous for, reigned supreme in exhibits that looked more like sculpture than habitat.
With both the Romanticism and Modernist styles abounding in this time period, zoo design was more about creating an art gallery than a responsible home for animals. Interestingly, due to the increased attention to health, captive animals’ life expectancies did increase almost to today’s levels. The only thing they missed was the mental health aspect of the habitats.
Zoos as Conservation and Education Facilities
Since the mid-20th century, our society has developed a strong sense of environmental awareness and human rights ethics, which eventually gave way to animal rights as well. In 1950, Hediger wrote “Wild Animals in Captivity” which opened people’s eyes to the idea of husbandry practices and exhibit design based on an animal’s natural history. What a novel approach! With the advances in healthcare (which overlaps into this era), animals in captivity began to be treat for physical as well as mental health.
During the 1970s, a group of folks at the Woodland Park Zoo (including two young designers from Jones and Jones Architects) decided to resurrect Hagenbeck’s ideas from long ago–but to advance them.
Instead of creating a living painting, they wanted to put the visitor into the habitat…Immerse them in the painting. And, instead of creating a visually exciting statement only, they decided to re-create the habitat in the which the animal was naturally seen. All of these things were incorporated into the gorilla exhibit at Woodland Park Zoo, and, thus, landscape immersion was born.
Since then, the idea of landscape immersion has caught on like wildfire, and today, is the standard of responsible zoo design. Understanding the past, I have to wonder where we are headed next…A topic for future discussion.


















July 10, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Very interesting and concise recap of zoo history. While zoos were not animal friendly in the begining, I do wonder if people were more amazed by being close to wild and exotic animals. For most of us now, it’s so easy to go to a zoo (and for some of us, great zoos for free!). Sometimes I think people take that for granted now, whereas in that time, it would be totally odd to see a tiger in the middle of St. Louis. But that’s what we have you for! Creating a new sense of amazement!
July 10, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Great thought, April! I’ve never considered this. Actually, we tend to think in opposing terms, saying nature was all around us in those days so the need for zoos was less. But, when we say nature, we dont mean exotics, and certainly, people in the 1800s would never have seen a tiger live, except at the zoo. We serve to inspire awe and create connections now, but were we just as successful then, despite the horrible animal conditions? Also, people today are inundated with methods of seeing animals, other than live–tv, internet, movies, etc. This means our challenge of creating awe and wonderment has actually increased, similarly to the advances in zoo design. Ironic.
July 11, 2008 at 11:34 am
Adding my two cents: the earliest zoos were probably collections of oddities for the aristocracy to find amusement in. When zoos went public (starting with Schonbrun) it seems to have been about boasting rights for the powerful. The early menageries and zoos were perhaps no different than a fine collection of paintings. So, to April’s point, were zoos then places of amazement or simply curiosity (I suppose the question may be, how deeply were the visitors affected?)
The notion of zoo-as-science-institution is commonly thought to have begun with the London Zoo in 1828. But it did not immediately revolutionize the zoo world (such as it was). Nineteenth-century zoos were as well known for their beautifully decorated grounds and grand restaurants (as well as lovely buildings)as for the animals. And the “general public” was not admitted. Only members, people of some standing, were allowed into the party.
It is interesting to read early accounts by zoo directors, such as Bartlett’s “Wild Animals in Captivity” and see the sense of “collecting rarities” that dominates (so much for creating connections). It all makes me wonder if those visitors to early zoos were amazed (as we know the term) or merely intrigued. In any event, the connection most likely created was one of possession. Even looking to what many consider the big revolution in zoo design, Carl Hagenbeck’s Tierpark, it made zoos look different, but did visitors feel differently about what they saw?
I think it is with David Hancocks’ Grant Jones, etc. work in Seattle that the revolution in the expected perceptions of the visitor really began a new age of zoo design.
And I agree with so much of what you have been writing, and Jon Coe and others have been urging, that zoo design needs another revolution.
July 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Enjoying this new resource and the conversations it is inspiring. Loved the early ’70s photo of David Hancocks! I mean the following in only the best way–as David has been an inspiration, mentor and friend for years–but you have to admit there is a rather uncanny resemblance to Austin Powers! Ahh the 70s!
I agree with Rob Halpern that David’s work with Jones and Jones at Seattle represents one of the true turning points in the history of zoo design philosophy. Most of the previous natural habitat exhibit efforts came out of the same type of thinking that created the great natural history museum dioramas–beautiful nature recreations contained in a box and viewed from a comfortable exterior vantage point. The work of Hagenbeck, Grzimek at Frankfurt Zoo’s “Exotarium,” the early projects at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and Bill Conway’s first big projects at the Bronx (Aquatic Bird House, World of Darkness and World of Birds) all fall squarely in the “diorama” model. Landscape immersion was a definite leap forward from this approach. What’s next?
September 10, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Not exactly. Descriptions of some ancient animal collections talk about features clearly like modern zoo – attempts of immersion, invisible barriers, environmental enrichment. These ideas were discovered and rediscovered for centuries.
Actually, some ancient monarchs kept animals semi-free on scale which modern zoos can dream on. Apparently, Montezuma had menagerie with huge walk-through bird hall.
March 20, 2009 at 11:16 am
COOLIO!
May 16, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Thought you’d enjoy seeing this short old film on the 1930s Bauhaus designs at the London Zoo:
July 29, 2011 at 4:32 pm
[...] See articles previously posted by ludzoo:http://designingzoos.com/2008/07/10/a-quick-lesson-in-zoo-design-history/ [...]
October 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm
what are the issues that always related with zoo design?
can somebody tell me in detail?