Designing Zoos

I have to admit that I’m a little behind on this one, but the new zoo in Valencia, Spain, called the BioParc, is now open. In fact, it opened early this spring, but thanks to an “also behind the times” mention in American Airlines’ inflight magazine, I’m bringing it to you now.

Apparently, only phase one has been opened. This phase is focused entirely on Africa. Subsequent phases will include Southeast Asia and the Tropics (which, to me is one in the same, so I’m confused!). The park prides itself on the use of landscape immersion techniques, blurring the line of the animals’ boundaries. One guest describes his experience eloquently here, including what sounds to be a pretty incredible walk-amongst-the-lemurs exhibit.

The park is approximately 25 acres (not sure if that is the final size or what is currently open), ticket price is 20 euros, and the collection is over 4000 animals strong. The ZooBeat forum outlines the current species on hand.

Unfortunately, the official website is in Espanol, and I know only a few words unlikely to be found on the site. Perhaps someone could help me out with some translation?

The question of co-evolution amongst zoos, aquaria, and science museums has been a lingering muse for decades now.  Back in 1986, Jon Coe cleverly equated the historical relationships to convergent evolution, and through his paper, which was more history lesson than predictor of the future, compared their similarities through time.  Ultimately, he suggests “an awareness of others and ourselves, together with a willingness to communicate, can lead us further into an exciting co-evolution of zoo, aquariums and natural history museums.”

I’d like to take it a step further.

I often wonder why we separate all of our science institutions, dividing the natural world into equal, but succinct pieces: land animal (zoos), plant (botanical gardens), aquatic animal (aquaria), and the sciences (natural history museums and science centers).  Of course, overlap occurs; zoos have fish and aquatic mammals, botanical gardens have butterfly houses, science museums have dioramas of the natural history of living creatures.  Additionally, the method of teaching the general sciences varies greatly from conservative natural history museum approaches to more “fun” and interactive science centers.

As Coe mentioned, the teaming up of these institutions would be a powerful force.  However, if, going beyond what Coe suggested, we created one institution that presented all of these disciplines, we’d be teaching holistically, presenting a unified view of the natural world that so many children and adults rarely get the chance to see. 

The world has changed dramatically since the inception of these learning institutions.  Most zoos and natural history museums began at the turn of the 19^th century, when for the good majority of people, we still lived in a mostly untouched rurality.  These people grew up with nature, lived in nature, or could easily visit nature, and learning about the natural world was most easily understood by the breaking down of components. 

Today, however, most people live in cities or suburbs.  Any nature we experience regularly is man-made or man-influenced, and certainly does not contain a wide variety of species or habitats.  Learning about nature now becomes easier through an immersive, holistic approach.  Add in society’s constant bombardment with story driven entertainment and eye-candy, and learning almost requires the same treatment.  Or so I postulate.

The Museum of Life and Science in Durham, North Carolina has already come to the same conclusion.  Currently, they house live animals, present botanical displays, a natural wetland trail, and incorporate hands-on science center activities throughout.  This is not enough for them, however. 

We envision a one-of-a-kind place, a science park, offering extraordinary experiences indoors, outdoors, and virtual where children and adults learn through the pursuit of their own interests and curiosity. We will be recognized as the leader in public engagement with science in the Triangle region and as a model for science museums across the nation.

Will this be the future of science institutions?  A one-stop shop, so to speak, for education and entertainment about the natural world?  All things are intertwined; nature is a web of life.  Why not present it that way?

Dallas Zoo has become another in a long line of zoos ditching their elephant exhibits under the increasing pressure of animal activists. Their single female elephant, Jenny, will be going to the Africam Safari Park in Mexico. This decision has come after the second elephant living at the zoo, KeKe, passed away in May, leaving Jenny all alone. The AZA’s standards suggest at least three females should be housed together.

The Zoo has announced plans for the defunct exhibit. They plan to expand their giraffe yard, and add more individuals, opening Spring 2009.  Additional comments from the zoo elude to plans of bringing elephants back in the future, when the zoo can afford to build a more responsible home for them.

Activists oppose the move to the Safari Park, preferring a Tennessee sanctuary to an international park where U.S. standards of care do not have to be followed. The Zoo has inspected the facility, however, and feels the Safari Park is an excellent choice.

Zoo babies are a boon for visitor attendance.  Most zoos have some kind of springtime zoo baby advertising festival, and can you blame them?  Everyone wants to see that baby tiger before he grows up. 

Here are just a few of the recent zoo babies making the news in the past couple of years from America and around the world.  Enjoy!!

Thailand is touting a tiger temple where visitors can, once daily, walk amongst, pet, and be photographed with endangered animals, including tigers. The temple claims the tigers are tame, and are all the offspring from an orphaned group rescued years ago.

I won’t deny the power of walking amongst these amazingly beautiful and powerful creatures, but where do we draw the line? Is petting a potentially dangerous animal truly beneficial to anyone beside the accountant at the temple?

And what of tameness via feeding the cats only cooked meat? Can this truly tame a big cat? I believe these cats can never truly be tamed, and I’m hesitant for anyone to work barrier free with the animals, not to mention letting uneducated visitors interact with them at will.

Plus, check out the photos. The cats look drugged, and definitely are chained up. Its a shame. And they call themselves a sanctuary.

What do you think?

A biologist studying bears for the past decade has captured hundreds of hours of grizzly bear behavior in Glacier National Park.  This information is key to good bear exhibit design, as it allows us to understand the natural needs and instincts of these massive creatures. 

Click here for video and article

Apparently, grizzly bears spend a lot of time rubbing their backs and heads on things, much like cats.  This behavior is believed to be related to scent marking.  Obviously, providing places for bears to do this in captivity will allow more natural behaviors to occur in front of the public, which is always entertaining and enlightening. 

Sometimes we forget why we do what we do.  An article about Jane Goodall’s new primate exhibit in Scotland reminded me.  In response to outcry against primates in captivity (notably by singer Morissey), she states:  

“In an ideal world chimpanzees and monkeys would be out in the wild as they were intended to be. But in the real world, there are not so many places like that and they are getting smaller all the time.

The choice is between living in wonderful facilities like these where they are probably better off or living the wild in an area like Budongo, where one in six gets caught in a wire snare, and countries like Congo, where chimpanzees, monkeys and gorillas are shot for food commercially. If I were a chimpanzee, I know what I would choose.”

Powerful words that reminds me that we’re not just creating memories for parents and children, but also providing a safe, enjoyable home for many of the world’s displaced creatures. 

And speaking of those memories, one San Diego Zoo visitor editorialized his recent experience at the Zoo, reminding us that, yes, zoos are about conservation and preservation, but sometimes we focus a bit too much on this aspect.

What does this mean to designers?  I think it means we need to focus on a celebration of the critters who live in the homes we build. 

Sometimes this means working with education departments to convince them that heavy messages aren’t always the answer.  Sometimes this means bringing entertainment into an exhibit.  Sometimes this means making architecture less of a focus.  Sometimes this means just making an exhibit about pure fun. 

I hate to beat a dead horse (and, really, who does love doing that?), our job is to make animals interesting and alluring.  Our guests need to walk away feeling empathy, feeling connection.  Yes, facts are great, and knowledge is power.  Call me jaded, but I’ll be happy if one of those kids (or, hey, even better, one of those adults) walks out of an exhibit saying, Man, those guys are cool!