Legacy Magazine

By Amy Dee Stephens

Shhh! Don’t tell anyone, but zoos aren’t just in the animal business anymore.

Sure, elephants and giraffes are the main reason over 150 million Americans walk through zoo gates each year. Snakes are cool, hippos are funny, and monkeys steal the show—except these days, those poor monkeys have so much to compete with!

As entertainment venues, zoos offer a vast array of options to suit visitors’ tastes: playgrounds, IMAX theaters, ropes courses, birthday party pavilions, food courts, spray parks, etc.

But zoos are suddenly finding themselves in a new and unexpected role: keepers of culture and community history. Many American zoos are celebrating their 50th or 100th birthdays, and quite by accident, their buildings reflect the changes that have occurred during that time.

For example, the Toledo Zoo possibly has the largest collection of existing buildings from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) from the 1930s.

“Our community has a strong association with the WPA,” said Andi Norman, director of marketing and public relations for the Toledo Zoo. “It put our ancestors back to work during the worst economic time in our country’s history.”

According to Norman, restoring their 1934 Reptile House, rather than tearing it down, was well received by visitors, who appreciate both the history and ambiance it creates.

The Oklahoma City Zoological and Botanical Garden is soon opening a zoo history museum. Memory Junction, housed in a WPA bathhouse, will share the story of the animals and visitors who have passed through the zoo’s gates for over 100 years. The quaint 80-year-old building will take on a new life—an unexpected time capsule, nestled between the ultra-modern elephant barn and the newly constructed stadium.

Although preservation projects such as these pose an array of wonderful opportunities to showcase history and architecture, zoo officials must also wade through complicated decisions:

• Doesn’t our audience expect us to build new exhibits?
• How do we house large animals now that space requirements have outgrown our existing buildings?
• Wouldn’t it be cheaper to start over rather than renovate an older structure?

Sentiment aside, preserving zoo buildings often comes down to real estate and finances. The new exhibits that bring visitors through the gates require space—space that can be created by demolishing outdated structures.

The Oklahoma City Zoo is currently working to develop a 10-year master plan. Historic structures complicate the process as architects struggle to develop newly themed exhibits or simply redesign pathways to improve traffic flow, all while trying to accommodate old structures that, quite frankly, are in the way.

Because none of Oklahoma City Zoo’s buildings are designated as official landmarks, the zoo is not required to keep them. Management must grapple with the issues of historic value, social obligation, and the best long-term interest of the zoo.

The Bronx Zoo, on the other hand, works under the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Some structures within the zoo are designated as historic property. Astor Court includes stately buildings, gardens, and pools where the elite once went to be seen in the late 1800s. Over time, keepers moved animals out and Astor Court became office space. Under the direction of Susan Chin, director of planning and design, Astor Court has been converted back to animal exhibits.

Two years ago, the Bronx Zoo reopened the 1903 Lion House with exhibits based on Madagascar. It became the state’s first LEED-certified historic landmark, recognized for meeting energy-saving standards. The landmarks commission even allowed some structural changes, such as skylights and an extended basement for mechanical systems.

“But make no mistake,” said Chin, “it can take a lot of money for redevelopment. Building a new Madagascar exhibit from the ground up would have been less expensive.”

Oregon Zoo also remodels its older buildings. In 2001, two primate enclosures underwent a $750,000 remodel to create the Amazon Flooded Forest exhibit.

“We took bare, modernist cages and transformed them into split-level underwater and upper canopy viewing,” said Brent Shelby, exhibit and interpretive design manager. “I’m not sure the building was historically valuable, but from an environmental perspective, it reinforces our message about reusing resources.”

In this case, the Amazon renovation was less expensive than starting over. According to Shelby, the building had a good “skeleton,” including good structure, electrical service, and heating and air-conditioning systems.

“We added new contours and flesh to the skeleton instead of demolishing the building and sending it to a landfill somewhere,” Shelby said.

Behind all the financial and physical considerations of saving historic structures, one must ask, “How will the public respond if their favorite zoo landmark is destroyed?”

It’s a valid concern, because communities have great ownership in their zoos. The public supports their site through ticket sales, tax levies, and membership fees, and they have other entertainment choices if they lose faith in their zoo.

According to Norman, preserving visitor accommodations is equally as important as saving animal exhibits, from the favorite sculpture every zoo visitor photographs to the beloved 50-year-old amphitheater. For Toledo Zoo, the community is so linked to its heritage that tearing down a historic structure is out of the question.

“We’d need an awfully strong case for demolition,” Norman said. “The outcry from the community would be intense. I wouldn’t want to be the public relations director!”

“It’s a great thing to try to protect architecture that is meaningful, but also understand that there are tradeoffs when the facilities house a living collection,” said Chin.

No one wants to be in the position that London Zoo faces. Nearly all of its Victorian-era buildings are government-mandated as historic landmarks, so they have little option when it comes to modernizing.

To combat such challenges, London Zoo has focused upon improving its infrastructure with energy-efficient mechanical systems, living roofs, and visitor messaging about reducing environmental impact. As a result, it has received awards for both “green tourism” and sustainability. To maintain animal care standards, however, larger animals were moved to London’s sister zoo, Whipsnade Zoo.

The Bronx Zoo faced similar challenges with its 1908 Elephant Building. Keepers complained about archaic conditions, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association required more space, and even visitors recognized the housing as inadequate. A few years ago, elephants moved out and rhinos, tapirs, and babirusas moved in. It was a good solution for animals and staff.

The Oklahoma City Zoo has dealt with aging grotto exhibits in a similar fashion. The grotto design, a concrete island or pit surrounded by a moat, was an innovation from the late 1800s that provided a view of the animals without bars or caging. In Oklahoma City, the concrete grottoes that once housed bears and cats are now filled with landscaped foliage and are home to smaller species like anteaters and meerkats.

This presentation works better, but it poses its own challenge. Many visitors remember watching bears pace back and forth on hot concrete. Although grottoes were once considered state-of-the-art, today’s improved conditions cause visitors to question the animals’ treatment in the past—a negative connotation that zoos don’t want their visitors to dwell upon.

So, is this a proverbial “free pass” for zoos to eliminate their grotto exhibits and start over?

Zoos with interest in their historic structures say no, because old-style exhibits represent the changes that have occurred in zoos over time.

“We need our old buildings as a point of reference, not just to tell us about the past, but to help place the present and future in perspective,” wrote Constance M. Greiff, author of Lost America.

Norman suggests that visitors have more appreciation for zoo improvements when they know the background information. At Toledo Zoo, a plaque in the Reptile House lists the recycled materials from which the WPA built the structure: stone from the Miami canal and reclaimed brick from city buildings being torn down.

According to Greiff, the appreciation of architecture seems to operate under the “great-grandfather clause.” Aesthetically, people most appreciate the architecture from several generations ago.

That may be the reason the WPA buildings are attracting such interest, while newer structures seem to have less historic value—at least for now.

Zoos span decades of social memory. In many instances, architecture is the visual trigger for conversations that begin, “I remember the zoo when….”

William Murray, a recent visitor to the Oklahoma City Zoo, said, “I’m all for progress, but I beg you not to take away those historical markers that make Oklahoma City Zoo unique. Those are my childhood memories.”

“As the zoo continues to grow and change, it’s important to look back,” said Dwight Scott, executive director of the Oklahoma City Zoo. “Giving our visitors an avenue to share their zoo memories across the span of time is a valuable contribution to this community.”

Most zoo officials and even historians will agree that not all buildings can or should be saved. However, heightened awareness that other zoos are viewing their property with new eyes is giving decision-makers pause. Do visitors value nostalgia along with modern entertainment?

“I foresee many conversations about zoo preservation,” said Shelby. “We will have to consider a building’s intrinsic value and nostalgic purpose and decide whether to preserve that piece of history.”

No, zoos aren’t just in the animal business anymore.

Monkeys are competing with both the spray park and the artistic stone architecture. Rhino keepers are now also caring for 100-year-old buildings. And zoo directors find themselves looking back to the past as they strive to look to the future—wondering when conservation took on such new meaning for zoos.

Is it that living museums have turned into, well, history museums?

Amy Dee Stephens is a naturalist educator at the Oklahoma City Zoo. She is also a freelance writer and author of the book Oklahoma City Zoo: 1902–1959.