Except, I never said anything like that...It has nothing to do with city comparisons and all of the inevitable ruffled rube feathers, or with killing buzzes, bursting bubbles, or harshing anyone's mellow.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jan 12, 2020So yes, it's a bit of a buzz kill to say "But Shed is WAAAAY better." Sure. We all know that. Who cares? I doubt I ever visit Shed again. Been there once. Once was enough. The zoo is vastly cooler and I don't go there that often. When in Chicago I have better things to do. But something local? I could see myself getting down there with a niece or nephew.
Again, the top nonprofit and for-profit aquatic zoos aren't comparable. All of the large nonprofits are scientific research institutions, much like the Saint Louis Zoo and Missouri Botanical Garden. They employ scientists and researchers, have breeding and conservation programs, fund and conduct studies and research missions. etc. And wealthy individuals and corporations sponsor and donate to them, for those reasons and others. They wouldn't exist otherwise.
No for-profit enterprise is going to build a large aquarium like National Aquarium in Baltimore, Georgia Aquarium, Monterey Bay, Shedd, etc., not in St. Louis or in any other city in this hemisphere, because it would never be profitable. And conversely, the for-profit aquarium is much smaller in size because that "nets" the highest ROI.
