This piece from 2013 does a detailed job of explaining what the Zoo had been planning to do on the Oakland Ave extension. Lots of renders, figures, etc here...urban_dilettante wrote: ↑May 03, 2024i don't recall—did the zoo fund the demolition?
Kennedy Forest is a state designated and maintained habitat conservation area.pattimagee wrote: ↑May 06, 2024^I always assumed the Kennedy Forrest (I think that's what that section is called - where Picnic Pavilion #11 is) was a prime spot for them to expand west if they needed more room...
i think the bird house is fine, i just wish they had fewer repeat displays, which is where a place like the No County facility comes in. Move you breeding pairs to NoCo, rotate which one are on display at the zoo proper, and trade the progeny for a wider variety of display animals.Trololzilla wrote: ↑May 08, 2024^ I don't think it was needed for anything like that, per se. Not saying they couldn't use it as such and some of the animals I think were moved to the NoCo site but AFAIK there are other priorities for that site than just animal storage (breeding/conservation). They likely wouldn't redo the whole area of the zoo at once either, just in chunks over time.
If I had to guess - assuming that the 2013 plan is in any way still remotely what they're thinking of doing - they'd probably get the South Campus (Forest Park Hospital Site) turned into the new south parking area and entrance while redeveloping the current south lot into a savannah exhibit, shunt the appropriate savannah animals (basically, the non carnivorous ones that can cohabitate one large exhibit well enough) over there, and start chunking out Red Rocks into the Silk Road area, a separate savannah area, and possibly an on-site breeding area or whatever they have/had planned for that part of the zoo. That said, when they came out with that plan they did say it's "what the zoo could look like in 20 years", so even if the want to move forward, they were never in a rush and still have themselves a decade to do anything. Plus, plans change so none of this could happen or could look drastically different. There's also the $50 million of deferred maintenance costs that the zoo mentioned they had even in 2013, so who knows what that looks like nowadays.
Hopefully the Bird House gets an interior remodel too as it's a bit... dated.
This isn't 1910 - zoos nowadays, including our zoo, don't trap animals in tiny cages anymore, and even if the public display areas seem small it's typically only a small fraction of the animals actual living areas and they're typically allowed to roam between the two. Your dislike of zoos also flies in the face of the goal of all reputable zoos on the planet, which is conservation. I fail to see how Forest Park could find better land use for the zoo anyway.flipz wrote: ↑May 08, 2024Maybe they move all animals up to the new north county location and let them roam. If some animals need rehabilitation they could then use the current zoo. Better yet they give the land back to the park for other uses. Cruel habit to keep wild animals in tiny displays unless they're trying to prevent extinction or something along those lines.
Didn't a bunch of elephants here die a few years back?
Agreed.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑May 08, 2024The South Campus will be a long wait as conceived because they need to build a donor base to support both construction and maintenance. Alternatively a partnership with a private developer could move it along ALOT faster. I think any layout that doesn't include a large privately managed hotel component is a mistake. I would say 500- 1000 room themed resort hotel built around the central exhibit space should be the goal.
That's what I meant to say, just forgot the "then" before "redeveloping".Additionally i don't see them breaking ground on a savannah exhibit unless the south campus is definitively settled. Imagine closing the south lot and moving all the parking to south campus and then trying to upset the apple cart again to build whatever exhibit they settle on on for the south side. Getting South Campus configured and then reconfiguring the zoo proper seems like a smoother operation.
You work in this field? Sounds personal to you. Yes they are still essentially tiny cages relative to the animals' natural environments. If conservation was the goal then preserving natural habitats would be way more financially effective. We'll see how the north county safari will turn out but I have high hopes.Trololzilla wrote: ↑May 10, 2024This isn't 1910 - zoos nowadays, including our zoo, don't trap animals in tiny cages anymore, and even if the public display areas seem small it's typically only a small fraction of the animals actual living areas and they're typically allowed to roam between the two. Your dislike of zoos also flies in the face of the goal of all reputable zoos on the planet, which is conservation. I fail to see how Forest Park could find better land use for the zoo anyway.flipz wrote: ↑May 08, 2024Maybe they move all animals up to the new north county location and let them roam. If some animals need rehabilitation they could then use the current zoo. Better yet they give the land back to the park for other uses. Cruel habit to keep wild animals in tiny displays unless they're trying to prevent extinction or something along those lines.
Didn't a bunch of elephants here die a few years back?
The zoo did lose two elephants recently, one elderly one that had to be put down due to a tumor and a middle-aged one due to a heart condition agitated by stress induced by a stray dog finding its way into the zoo and disturbing the herd. What you're probably thinking of though is Grant's Farm, who did basically lose an entire herd a few years back.
