Just toured the aquarium today for free (I worked in the chiller room and the contractor gave us a tour). I got say, it was honestly a little bigger than I thought it was gonna be. I did set my standards a little lower because I heard from friends that it was small, but I thought it was very well put together! Some things to note:
1) throughout the walk, there needs to be more wall art/paint bc I found myself wandering and looking at exit signs when walking from one stretch of viewing windows to the next.
2) I totally believe the prices will decrease once LHM proves to themselves that it is making a lot of dough, maybe to lower to around $15 per adult.
3) I think the second phase will triple the size of the aquarium solely because the first phase of this project included ropes course, mini golf, train shed, soda fountain, lake shows, etc, while the next phase will expand only the aquarium.
Overall, I enjoyed it, the people and families I saw there were really enjoying it, and it looked great through and through, which makes me hopeful and excited for the future of Union station.
Has union station ownership ever mentioned that the aquarium is a phased project?
Not that I've seen. And I'm not sure where folks are imagining these double or triple-space expansions will be built.
I know there is some vacant space around the headhouse, but they can't expand into the Midway space for historic preservation reasons. Likewise, there are a lot of limitations to new construction on the south entrance plaza. They could use the Mirror Maze, rope course, gift shop, and conservation museum space I suppose, but it seems unlikely they would tear those out any time soon after spending many millions to build them. I know there are, or were, tunnels under the train shed, but I thought that space has mostly been used or filled. Is there some other large vacant space remaining in, or under, the enclosed or built-out portion of the train shed somewhere of which I am unaware?
I think this was a great investment. Despite this big, solid and sound investment, I still wish the world-class aquarium would have been built near the St. Louis Zoo campus.
With that said, I did a cursory check and I think St. Louis' aquarium is about the 3rd or 4th largest in the Midwest in terms of square footage, gallons, animals and species.
St. Louis' is 120,000 square feet, 13000 animals, 1-million gallons, 200 species, total exhibits (unknown).
Shedd in Chicago is head and shoulders above any Midwest aquarium. Newport Aquarium in metro Cincinnati is slightly larger than St. Louis'. Detroit has a Sealife, but is exploring building a $150-million aquarium. KC also has a Sealife. Minnesota/Minneapolis has a Sealife. It has fewer animals, but more gallons at 1.2 million. It is only 70,000 square feet. And Cleveland's aquarium is smaller to at 70,000sf.
I've been to Newport, Georgia, Shedd, Moody (Galveston) and two aquarium restaurants. I'm not a big zoo and aquarium person. I usually only go when I'm dragged to one with others.
That said, I think St. Louis' may end up being managed or bought by an entertainment company. I haven't been to it, but in contrast to the others, based on footage/video I've seen, it is a nice facility. When comparing it to Shedd or Georgia it is dwarfed. I don't know of any other aquariums that compare to those.
I think animals/species make an aquarium stand out. For example, Texas State Aquarium (Corpus Christie) has dolphins. In St. Louis, the blue-bleeding blue lobster is awesome, but what else could St. Louis do to set itself apart from the rest?
That said, I think St. Louis' may end up being managed or bought by an entertainment company.
Stl aquarium is managed/operated by a company out of Dubai
Really?!! Okay, what company? What other locations do they manage and operate?
Dubai-based zoOceanarium, which specializes in developing and operating aquariums, zoos and wildlife-focused science centers, will operate the 125,000-square-foot aquarium once it’s completed.
Dubai-based zoOceanarium, which specializes in developing and operating aquariums, zoos and wildlife-focused science centers, will operate the 125,000-square-foot aquarium once it’s completed.
Dubai-based zoOceanarium, which specializes in developing and operating aquariums, zoos and wildlife-focused science centers, will operate the 125,000-square-foot aquarium once it’s completed.
Great thanks for the information. I thought it was LHM.
It's already a good-looking facility.
Well, now I feel it will consistently improve over time.
I believe LHM is the owner of the aquarium (along with the rest of Union Station), but they've contracted out operations management to zoOceanarium Group.
I think this was a great investment. Despite this big, solid and sound investment, I still wish the world-class aquarium would have been built near the St. Louis Zoo campus.
With that said, I did a cursory check and I think St. Louis' aquarium is about the 3rd or 4th largest in the Midwest in terms of square footage, gallons, animals and species.
St. Louis' is 120,000 square feet, 13000 animals, 1-million gallons, 200 species, total exhibits (unknown).
Shedd in Chicago is head and shoulders above any Midwest aquarium. Newport Aquarium in metro Cincinnati is slightly larger than St. Louis'. Detroit has a Sealife, but is exploring building a $150-million aquarium. KC also has a Sealife. Minnesota/Minneapolis has a Sealife. It has fewer animals, but more gallons at 1.2 million. It is only 70,000 square feet. And Cleveland's aquarium is smaller to at 70,000sf.
I've been to Newport, Georgia, Shedd, Moody (Galveston) and two aquarium restaurants. I'm not a big zoo and aquarium person. I usually only go when I'm dragged to one with others.
That said, I think St. Louis' may end up being managed or bought by an entertainment company. I haven't been to it, but in contrast to the others, based on footage/video I've seen, it is a nice facility. When comparing it to Shedd or Georgia it is dwarfed. I don't know of any other aquariums that compare to those.
I think animals/species make an aquarium stand out. For example, Texas State Aquarium (Corpus Christie) has dolphins. In St. Louis, the blue-bleeding blue lobster is awesome, but what else could St. Louis do to set itself apart from the rest?
3rd or 4th largest in the Midwest sounds about right, although technically I don't know that Newport, KY is the "Midwest". But it's pointless trying to rank them, as you are comparing apples and oranges in a lot of cases. There's a huge difference between the non-profit (or not-for-profit) institutions, and the commercial aquariums like the Union Station Aquarium.
The large public institution aquariums like Shedd in Chicago, Georgia in Atlanta, National Aquarium in Baltimore, Tennessee Aquarium, etc. were built with donations, and their main purpose is education. Georgia Aquarium was built with $250 million from Bernard Marcus (Home Depot), and $50 million from other Atlanta corporations. Shedd has been around for almost a century and was built and expanded almost entirely with donations. Then there's a lot of aquariums / aquatic animal exhibits at publicly-funded zoos which are probably as big or bigger, like those at Columbus, Omaha, etc., but also part of much larger exhibits.
The Union Station Aquarium should be compared to the other commercial aquariums like SeaLife at Mall of America, Newport Aquarium, Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg, TN, which are all part of larger entertainment and tourist attractions. Like those, attendance here will ultimately depend on the overall package of attractions at Union Station, and the ability of management to keep adding new features and other attractions, to keep it fresh and interesting for locals and Midwesterners in general.
"3rd or 4th largest in the Midwest sounds about right, although technically I don't know that Newport, KY is the "Midwest". "
I've been to the Newport Aquarium. It is literally five minutes across the river from downtown Cincinnati, which is geographically Midwest. While Kentucky is officially a southern state, going to the Newport Aquarium would be like going to downtown East St. Louis from downtown St. Louis using the Eads. Covington, KY, which is where Newport Aquarium is located, is in metro Cincinnati. The historic Roebling Bridge (Cincy's Eads) dumps you off in downtown Covington, KY.
"But it's pointless trying to rank them, as you are comparing apples and oranges in a lot of cases. There's a huge difference between the non-profit (or not-for-profit) institutions, and the commercial aquariums like the Union Station Aquarium."
Let's be clear. That's how you chose to measure the differences between the aquariums. I stuck basically to size metrics. I don't (and didn't) care if they were for-profit/commercial or non-profit. My only concern was overall size, exhibits, gallons, animals/species. While funding sources may have dictated individual facility size and overall metrics, my only concern was the size of each, which is simple but prudent to consider.
"The Union Station Aquarium should be compared to the other commercial aquariums like SeaLife at Mall of America, Newport Aquarium, Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg, TN, which are all part of larger entertainment and tourist attractions. Like those, attendance here will ultimately depend on the overall package of attractions at Union Station, and the ability of management to keep adding new features and other attractions, to keep it fresh and interesting for locals and Midwesterners in general."
Again, I did a cursory comparison between big metro Midwestern aquariums by size only. You're welcome to use the other metrics you choose. As it stands, St. Louis Aquarium, in terms of size, appears to fall about 3rd or 4th in size in the Midwest based on my cursory comparisons. Anyway, I'm hopeful Dubai-based zoOceanarium will do well for St. Louis' growth.
"3rd or 4th largest in the Midwest sounds about right, although technically I don't know that Newport, KY is the "Midwest". "
I've been to the Newport Aquarium. It is literally five minutes across the river from downtown Cincinnati, which is geographically Midwest. While Kentucky is officially a southern state, going to the Newport Aquarium would be like going to downtown East St. Louis from downtown St. Louis using the Eads. Covington, KY, which is where Newport Aquarium is located, is in metro Cincinnati. The historic Roebling Bridge (Cincy's Eads) dumps you off in downtown Covington, KY.
Yes, that's why I said "technically".
The only point was that the term "Midwest" , and the comparison, is rather arbitrary, considering some of the best and largest inland aquariums are in Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia, and are closer to St. Louis than most of the Midwest (and definitely a much more enjoyable drive). Even Atlanta is closer to St. Louis than Minneapolis or Cleveland, for example.
"But it's pointless trying to rank them, as you are comparing apples and oranges in a lot of cases. There's a huge difference between the non-profit (or not-for-profit) institutions, and the commercial aquariums like the Union Station Aquarium."
Let's be clear. That's how you chose to measure the differences between the aquariums. I stuck basically to size metrics. I don't (and didn't) care if they were for-profit/commercial or non-profit. My only concern was overall size, exhibits, gallons, animals/species. While funding sources may have dictated individual facility size and overall metrics, my only concern was the size of each, which is simple but prudent to consider.
I didn't choose any measurement. Commercial and nonprofit aquariums are simply not planned and designed the same way because the goal is completely different, so comparing them quantitatively by area, volume, or number of displays, animals, etc. is meaningless.
The former are designed to have a few "cool", popular, impressive displays (like sharks and river otters) which they can splash across billboards and websites to attract tourists, and planned linearly to funnel as many through as they can per hour, and then dump them out in front of the gift shop, restaurants, and other paid attractions. They don't want a lot of open space and areas with many small displays where people will linger.
Of course they want to attract tourists as well, but the nonprofit, institutional aquariums have an educational mission, and so are designed more like a zoo or museum. They try to have an exhibit for every habitat, and as many species in each as possible, even the boring ones. And they encourage people to gather and linger, have a lot more paths and rooms, more small exhibits, lots of large open spaces, classroom areas for tours and field trips, etc.
"I didn't choose any measurement. Commercial and nonprofit aquariums are simply not planned and designed the same way because the goal is completely different, so comparing them quantitatively by area, volume, or number of displays, animals, etc. is meaningless."
Yes, you did. And you are still doing it. It is only "meaningless" because you seem to want to do it your "superior" way and only your way - so it seems.
It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest measuring facility size and other facility metrics are "meaningless" when such metrics are consistently used across the aquaria industry (the whole wide world, basically). The metrics are used routinely by entities who often include commercial and non-profit aquariums on their lists. And chances are they are using more credible/accurate numeral metrics than either you or I. You are buzz-killing the fun of this with picayune "scholarly" minutia. Your measurement "additions" may matter on a different compilation list - not mine. But thanks.
View these links below. View the video as well. They all manage to give glimpses into sizes, exhibits, gallons, animals etc. Those are the primary measuring sticks.
You are buzz-killing the fun of this with picayune "scholarly" minutia. Your measurement "additions" may matter on a different compilation list - not mine. But thanks.
LOL, I don't think I've heard anyone use that term in a decade, but "Buzz-killing" is a perfect way to describe this conversation.
Any list that compares tourist attractions run by the operators of Ripley's Believe It or Not™ "museums" to research institutions like Georgia, National, Shedd, etc. proves my point perfectly, thank you very much. When Ripley's builds a really popular "safari adventure" and petting zoo in one of their theme parks and it gets 4 million visitors, what would you think about anyone ranking that against the St. Louis Zoo based on numbers? Exactly. Now just nevermind, sit back on that couch, and enjoy that buzz...
^Oh, come on. People compare the zoo and Grant's Farm all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Grant's Farm described as a "mini zoo." And honestly, you could even add Lone Elk and the Wolf Sanctuary to the comparisons. If you want animal attractions they've all got them. Sure, we all know the zoo is the biggest and best, but the others each have something to offer. And they're all pretty dang different, but they all have animals in common, so if you like seeing animals any and all of them might be of interest.
So 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.
Also: arch city kind of addressed the very reasons your big fish parks beat the private tourist attractions: number of species, size of display area, size of tanks, and so forth. He wasn't just talking visitor numbers. If you translate it into zoos there's no way Ripley would sneak in even if they did have four million visitors, as they wouldn't have the species, habitat quality, space, and so forth. Just butts in seats. Or . . . feet on paths, I guess. Noses on glass? (Different theatres. Different anatomy.)
We went with our 15 month old daughter and had a blast. Incredibly interactive, we bought annual passes and will be back. Enough to keep us entertained as well but for kids it's perfect.
^Oh, come on. People compare the zoo and Grant's Farm all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Grant's Farm described as a "mini zoo." And honestly, you could even add Lone Elk and the Wolf Sanctuary to the comparisons. If you want animal attractions they've all got them. Sure, we all know the zoo is the biggest and best, but the others each have something to offer. And they're all pretty dang different, but they all have animals in common, so if you like seeing animals any and all of them might be of interest.
People describe Grant's Farm as a mini-zoo because that is what it is. Or most of it is. That doesn't make it comparable to the Saint Louis Zoo. I don't think Grant's Farm was ever run to make a profit, so it's not a good analogy to the aquarium comparison, but...it would be a bit like ranking all zoos by some combination of size in acres, number of large animals, and number of exhibits. In that case, the Saint Louis Zoo would be very far down the list in the US, and not even the best zoo in the metro area.