Deja Zoo

Last year, I visited Chattanooga's Tennessee Aquarium for the first time.  Whereas I usually do a lot of my zoo visits solo, on this occasion I was joined by a colleague from the National Aquarium in Baltimore.  It was the first visit for both of us.  We were approaching the building, my attention distracted by views of the Tennessee River, when my companion stopped in her tracks.  

"Oh, you have got to be kidding," she muttered as she looked ahead.  The glass pyramids that crowned the aquarium were a mirror image of those at Baltimore.  As we entered and wandered the galleries, her exasperation mounted.  The rainforest under the glass pyramid.  The winding ramps leading downward, surrounded by giant fish tanks.  Even the font on the signage.  "I feel like I could give a tour of this place," she quipped, "and I've never even been here before."

I've understood the feeling.  I too have encountered deja zoo - being struck by the strong similarity between two institutions.  Como Park Zoo and Henry Vilas Zoo, for example, or Cape May County Zoo and Metro Richmond Zoo. The similarities may be due to similar animal collections, similar architecture, or similar settings.

There can be a few reasons for this.  One is that, with zoo animals no longer coming from the wild in significant numbers (especially mammals), the least common species (the "One and Only" is how I've referred to them in the past) are becoming less common, and animal collections are trending towards becoming a bit more homogenous.  Secondly, the trend towards geographic exhibits has resulted in a lot of repetition - African Savannah, Asian Highland, South American Rainforest - with the same species being highlighted (understandably, zoos tend not to build exhibit complexes that would feature species that they don't have and can't get).  Third, many zoos are using the same small number of companies to design their exhibits, hence the similar structures.  Fourth, as we learn more and more about the needs of animals and best practices of their care, there's more of a desire to replicate that.  After all, if you know a practice works for a given species, why wouldn't everyone want to copy what works best?

For many visitors, the trend might not be as noticeable, because most visitors usually only go to a) their local zoo/aquarium, and b) a destination facility that may have a reputation as a major attraction on its own, such as the San Diego Zoo.  For zoo aficionados (especially those who have been going to zoos for many years and have seen the homogenization in effect), it can be a bit more striking, as some zoos loose the facilities and animals that made them unique and start to blend together.

I can understand and appreciate the desire to build sustainable populations and to replicate successful practices.  I just also like to hold on to the features that make some zoos unique.  Some of those are things that will never change, especially if they are geography-based - Cheyenne Mountain Zoo's breathtaking scenery, Zoo Miami's subtropical climate, the Manhattan skyline from the Central Park Zoo.  Others are more exhibit-specific: Los Angeles Zoo's roundhouses, Milwaukee's predator/prey dioramas, Philadelphia Zoo's overhead tunnels (which themselves are a feature which is being duplicated at many other facilities now).  

There is, I am sure, a way for facilities to be both excellent and adhering to the same high standards while also finding their own ways to be unique and stand apart from the crowd.