Zoos as contexts for cutting edge, iconic buildings
We know how much certain zoos have found listed ‘heritage’ buildings a huge burden rather than an asset. Animal welfare has to be the number one priority, and, to earn a living, visitor access number two.
However the recent success of Twycross Zoo in attracting £3 million for its new entrance, in part due to this building’s offer an eco-demonstration model for 0.5 million visitors, does again raise the idea of profiling exciting buildings of all sorts on zoo sites.
Where better for instance for the public to consider what the sustainable home of the future might and should look like?
Jane Thornback of the Construction Products Association made a very similar point at the annual conference of the British & Irish Association of Zoos & Aquaria.
In one sense, zoo sites are collections of some necessarily very radical and exotc constructions. Is there not a way to turn this to the further advantage of both our own organisations and Society as a whole?
John
2 Responses to “Zoos as contexts for cutting edge, iconic buildings”
Got something to say?
I agree that any conservation-minded organization, be they zoos, botanical gardens, or other, should make every effort to use eco-friendly construction in both practice and design of buildings. As you so aptly stated, where better for the public to learn such sustainable practices for their own home.
At facilities where I have worked new buildings were rarely constructed with resource-efficient features. When questioned, management would often respond by stating that such design in a building is just too costly. This is disheartening. Zoos should ‘practice what they preach’ by building right or not at all. Besides, these buildings may have a large, upfront cost but typically save money over their lifetimes. For budget conscious facilities you can’t get much better.
I agree with Mr. Schamberger on the “practice what You preach”-issue; modern zoos should really try to keep this in mind when building new exhibits-and think not just the demands of the visitors, but of the animals and the zoo personnel, too.
Over the last years, there has been a heated discussion, also brought up by zoo-critics, about zoos investing large sums on zoo buildings while at the same time spending much less if anything at all on the conservation projects they advertise. In quite a few cases, this indeed is true and should make one think about the real role of modern zoos in practical conservation (as a mere “motivational zoo”?). And one should not forget that while spending a lot of money on the “charismatic megafauna” like elephants, cetaceae and apes or on visitor-friendly attractions, other, less popular zoo animals whose needs and demands are at least equally important (and most often less pricey) might be neglected when it comes to improving their husbandry. BTW: this is also and especially true for the many super-sized aquariums like The Georgia…
On the other hand, one should not forget that zoos need visitors to keep things running-and modern visitors require certain amenities and something worth their money. To find a happy medium between these extremes is a constant challange for zoos; a former San Diego Zoo employee once made the interesting suggestion to have an obligatory percentage of the money spent on the “new exciting zoo building” (f.e. 5%) invested in a conservation program. It’d be interesting to see this suggestion put into practical use.