The mission of zoos now is, at the very least, fostering and supporting a care for Nature and, at best, personal commitment to preserve natural places. Immersion exhibits, done right as Lee states, are aimed at bringing those Places to the visitor. The animals are essential, of course, but let’s not lose sight of the big picture.

PECO Primate Reserve is a fun place to see primates. (And the outdoor yards to not stand up to Lee’s criteria for real imersion!) How does a visitor take that experience anywhere that matters for the wild populations? What’s the connection? What’s the “in”?

Our culture is in fact very different from others, and, definitely, are instant gratification addicts.

However, part of good design is understanding our market and our guests. As difficult as it is for us, as nature lovers and animal lovers, to understand why some people do not get that amazing sensation of joy from watching, through binoculars, a bluebird alight to a birdbox with a worm for its anxious brood, and others do (like I’m sure you and I do), we have to remember that zoos are a cultural institution fighting for the precious free time our society has. And in those few hours people are able to spend with us, we need to impact them in the most powerful way possible, igniting a passion or curiosity as a means to educate. At one time, a landscape immersion was enough. Now, as its just the basis of expectation, we’re searching for new ways to surprise, engage, amuse and enlighten.

Nature is timeless. But is it exciting for all? For most people, the people we truly need to reach, those who do not feel the way we do about it, those who do not regularly seek out spending time in nature as a free time activity, for those people, those people who most desperately need a connection, a spark, an interest, what is the best way to connect with them? A pretty setting or an engaging, interactive, playful experience?

I’m definitely not advocating demeaning or diminishing the animal in any way. In fact, I’m advocately for drawing parallels between animals and ourselves. Encouraging active animals through enrichment and focusing on that as the design element, or encouraging animals to make decisions that affect the visitor, or having shared experiences beyond just a setting. It does not mean to present the animal in anything but a respectful manner.

Another great example of a non-LANDSCAPE immersion exhibit, which is immersive in architecture, but not so much in landscape, is the PECO Primate Reserve at Philadelphia Zoo (designed by Coe himself). This exhibit is dominated by man-made architecture; however, the experience is amazing in that the primates have choices and move about all around you. There are also shared experiences incorporated, like climbing into a box with a primate (glass between).

Moving beyond landscape immersion, does not mean forgetting about it. It does not mean forgetting about story or theming. It means building on what we have currently, learning from what worked and what didnt, and pushing beyond a passive experience.

From what I believe you are expressing, I think you’d love the concept Coe set forth for the UnZoo. Basically, it calls for re-creating a natural habitat. Creating a Biodome (almost or exactly!) and an environment that allows the habitat to come into balance on its own with a little help from us. Its the next step from a drive through safari.

I’m in love with this concept as well. However, it has its flaws, considering space, time and money. I can see this becoming a new attraction in the middle of the countryside that becomes a destination. Its sort of Jurassic Park like. But, urban zoos will still exist, I’m sure. And the question for them is, what now?

Nature is timeless. Concepts like “activity -based” or “novelty-based” design are not.

Zurich has been able to cultivate a zoo-going public who bring binoculars to the Madagascan rainforest exhibit to search for animals, ala an ecotourist experience. Here in the US we seem to be succumbing to accepting that our visitors are so impatient and media-saturated that we need to present animals as part of a barrage of entertainment modes.

We can do better.

I simply question the need for landscape immersion as a style of exhibitry at all. If we create the connection to the animal, meet its mental and physical needs (which do not require landscape immersion at all), and bring the guests close to the animal, wouldnt that be more powerful than a beautiful setting?

Case in point…Read the review of Jungala @ Busch Gardens. The reviewer says Jungala is BETTER than Disney’s Animal Kingdom’s Maharaja Trail, which in my opinion is the best landscape immersion exhibit I’ve ever seen (of course they use architecture to achieve it). He also criticizes the experience’s lack of quality theming (and immersion). Thus, he’s saying the importance of the connection (proximity + interaction) is more important, more impactful, than the setting.

Of course, we all feel differently about this.

I also agree that “novelty-based” design may not be a huge revolution in design; however, I’m still waiting on someone to think up what will be the next revolution. Ideas beget ideas…We should all share our thoughts and perhaps that will push to the next level.

Thanks for reading, Lee, and contributing!!

Today, it is a cliche to say an exhibit is an “immersion exhibit,” just as in years past anything with a fake rock was called a “natural habitat.” Zoo clients need to be more demanding and zoo designers need to be much more creative to not accept the cookie-cutter stuff that is popping up around the globe. And yes, built-in naturalistic enrichment and visitor proximity are important, not as a “new paradigm” but simply the natural product of a thoughtful and creative landscape immersion design.