The Zoo had, at a time, the largest restaurant in Germany, with more staff employed in the restaurant alone than in some mid-sized American zoos today. It was the site of concerts and lectures. It was a popular meeting place. Its art and architecture was some of the finest, most elaborate, and most discussed in the city, from the delicate friezes of the Antelope House to the towering temple of the Elephant House. It was, in short, the social and cultural hub of the city. The Zoo, to many Germans of the era, was Berlin.
It's hard to think of any US zoo taking on a similar role in the psyche of a city.
Part of it is a reflection of the changing times. We as a society are less civic-minded with less focus on our city institutions. Travel is much easier and cheaper, meaning that we can move around more easily to see other attractions in other cities, states, and countries. We are all connected online and on our phones, which means that we may have deeper, more meaningful connections to people hundreds of miles away than we are our close neighbors. Even the most famous zoos of our age don't seem to have the cultural pull that the Berlin Zoo had in those days.
It makes me a little nostalgic for something I never saw.
Sure, the mission of the zoo has changed over the years, with more emphasis on conservation and education than on civic glory and amusement. And yes, mobilization and globalization cut both ways, which is why on a busy day I can see people from several states or countries coming through the gates. But it would be special to have our institution... I don't know... elevated. To get the sense that we weren't just another local attraction, but that we were an institution. An icon. One that was so closely tied to the identity of our community as to be almost indistinguishable.
An argument could be made (and is made, by some), the zoos and aquariums should focus solely on their mission - wildlife conservation, education - and that anything deviating from that message (say, a concert series) distracts from the mission. It is true that when you expand yourself into a cultural sphere there is always the potential for problems. I remember one recent US zoo which found itself dealing with angry social media posts after hosting a drag story time last year - besides the hostility that drag performances seem to instill in some people, there were other folks asking what possible connection there was between drag queens and animals to begin with. Could the zoo have maintained a little more peace and quiet by "staying in their lane" as some community members suggested? Sure. So why bother with it?
It isn't a question of vanity, or self-importance, or wanting to be taken seriously. It's a sense that the future success of the zoo and its mission will always be dependent on community support. When the zoo itself is front and center in the minds and hearts of the community, even if it's for something largely not related to animals, the mission follows. Granted, the zoo should never do something that's contrary to its mission just to get attention or funding. But by expanding its appeal to people who might not at first glance be too interested in animals, the zoo can broaden its base of support and better position itself to carry out the goals that are central to its purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment