18482

Kudos to whoever drew these drawings. Beautiful work.

I know that's part of what had previously been discussed, but that plan died. So i would say don't count it being on the actual zoo grounds out until you see it actually open somewhere else.

not correct

I know that's part of what had previously been discussed, but that plan died. So i would say don't count it being on the actual zoo grounds out until you see it actually open somewhere else.
You should trust BoulderSooner on this one. He is 100% correct.

I know that's part of what had previously been discussed, but that plan died. So i would say don't count it being on the actual zoo grounds out until you see it actually open somewhere else.

There are ongoing plans to place the zoo aquarium at Okana.

Not 100% a done deal, but that is the avenue that is being pursued with the expectation it will be built as part of that development.

That's not ideal in my mind. I like the idea of the tribes supplementing, but it sure seems like we've been moving more towards relying on them to provide amenities than the government. It's all very complicated but I just feel like it changes the support.

That's not ideal in my mind. I like the idea of the tribes supplementing, but it sure seems like we've been moving more towards relying on them to provide amenities than the government. It's all very complicated but I just feel like it changes the support.
It would not be executed/operated by the Chickasaws; they would mostly be providing the location, which would mutually benefit OKANA and the aquarium. The aquarium would still be funded in large part by the OKC Zoo.

It would not be executed/operated by the Chickasaws; they would mostly be providing the location, which would mutually benefit OKANA and the aquarium. The aquarium would still be funded in large part by the OKC Zoo.

That only slightly moves the needle for me. I think my biggest gripe is the location. In my mind the aquarium should be near the zoo because, well it's a water zoo, and should be near similar venues. I personally would want to go to both on the same day, but being in 2 separate locations, I don't see myself doing that. Usually once we get the kids back in the car from an adventure it's to go home, because everyone is exhausted.

How many people are going to go to a waterpark, get soaking wet, then go to an aquarium? I doubt many residents. Now if I drove in from out of town and was staying at the resort, sure I can go change and go to other events easily. So then it starts to get me thinking this development is geared more for tourists than residents. And maybe it is and I missed that memo. We definitely need tourists attractions as well. Some function as both.

But in my mind placing the aquarium off-site from the zoo is not the best placement for residents.

The intersection of I-35 and I-40 is far more accessible to the majority of OKC metro residents than is 50th and MLK, and much more visible to regional and out-of-state visitors to the city. And using the waterpark, visiting FAM, staying at OKANA is in no way a prerequisite to visit the aquarium; it will be a destination in its own right. It would benefit those places, just as their proximity would benefit the aquarium. However neither would be dependent upon the other in any way.

Regarding local vs visitor, many locals might be surprised to know that 75% of the zoo's admission is from non-OKC zip codes. The zoo depends heavily upon the visitor market, and this operation would be even more dependent. A family Zoofriends membership is a nice way to have unlimited annual entries to the zoo, and a nice amenity for locals, who heavily rely on this highly-discounted pricing structure, but visitors are the ones who actually pay the freight at the zoo's front gate, and help subsidize OKC's quality of life in the bargain.

Last but not least, the reason this is not going on zoo grounds is due to the desire/need for separate admissions from the zoo. Human nature would cause many to expect that if it is on zoo grounds it should be included in zoo admission. The reality is that an aquarium will probably by itself carry a higher daily admission than the zoo. It needs geographical separation in order to achieve this. Admissions will likely be MUCH higher in the OKANA location than it would be in the Adventure District.

I think having more major attractions like an aquarium near the CBD as opposed to the Adventure District is a great move. Not sure if I care that it’s next to Okana or not but I really like the idea of people traveling here and being close to the most impressive areas of the city. Not to mention the the zoo and Science Museum are in one of the most dangerous areas of OKC haha. So I’m okay with the aquarium being built elsewhere regardless.

And that’s just to put it simply. From my perspective. I think this would help visitors to be immersed in OKC’s culture.

The intersection of I-35 and I-40 is far more accessible to the majority of OKC metro residents than is 50th and MLK, and much more visible to regional and out-of-state visitors to the city. And using the waterpark, visiting FAM, staying at OKANA is in now way a prerequisite to visit the aquarium; it will be a destination in its own right. It would benefit those places, just as their proximity would benefit the aquarium. However neither would be dependent upon the other in any way.

Regarding local vs visitor, many locals might be surprised to know that 75% of the zoo's admission is from non-OKC zip codes. The zoo depends heavily upon the visitor market, and this operation would be even more dependent. A family Zoofriends membership is a nice way to have unlimited entries to the zoo, and a nice amenity for locals, but visitors actually pay the freight and help subsidize OKC's quality of life in the bargain.

Last but not least, the reason this is not going on zoo grounds is due to the desire/need for separate admissions from the zoo. Human nature would cause many to expect that if it is on zoo grounds it should be included in zoo admission. The reality is that an aquarium will probably by itself carry a higher daily admission than the zoo. It needs geographical separation in order to achieve this. Admissions will likely be MUCH higher in the OKANA location than it would be in the Adventure District.

very well said

I think having more major attractions like an aquarium near the CBD as opposed to the Adventure District is a great move. Not sure if I care that it’s next to Okana or not but I really like the idea of people traveling here and being close to the most impressive areas of the city. Not to mention the the zoo and Science Museum are in one of the most dangerous areas of OKC haha. So I’m okay with the aquarium being built elsewhere regardless.

The neighborhood looked like a regular middle class area when I drove around there. Have had a few customers west of MLK and have delivered cars to their homes. I noticed their houses were better than mine and their cars were newer and more expensive.

The neighborhood looked like a regular middle class area when I drove around there. Have had a few customers west of MLK and have delivered cars to their homes. I noticed their houses were better than mine and their cars were newer and more expensive.

Yeah, it's nowhere close to being one of the most dangerous areas in OKC, we drive through there all the time, day or night, weekday or weekend, and have never seen anything happen.

The neighborhood looked like a regular middle class area when I drove around there. Have had a few customers west of MLK and have delivered cars to their homes. I noticed their houses were better than mine and their cars were newer and more expensive.

I only say that cause a buddy of mine is an agent with ATF who does investigations and undercover work and says there is constant sketchy stuff and crime going on over there. He hates taking his family in that area. But it is mostly undercover so I suppose we don't hear about all of it haha. I've never had an issue in that area either!

Happened to visit back on the 12th and took a few pictures of the new areas. You can get fairly close to the giraffes in the barn! So as long as you can tolerate the smell.

Pictures mostly near/around the giraffe area and the lemur playground at the entrance:

https://i.imgur.com/MbaP2Ff.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/xwClOPe.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/bqeTOKY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/TZOT4jQ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/VJOs4gh.jpg

This was taken with 3X zoom:
https://i.imgur.com/s7fi1eB.jpg

Normal/no zoom in the part of giraffe barn where you can walk through:
https://i.imgur.com/jl58gpu.jpg

not correct

Like I said, I'll believe anything new on that when i see them break ground. I'm trying to argue with you on this, but it's not the first time some crazy idea has come up, that then fizzled out. If it's in partnership with the Chickasaw, well I know that it will be done well. But that doesn't change the reason for my sadness about that.

I'd prefer it actually be at the actual zoo and not somewhere else in town. Anything otherwise, is just a way to collect a second ticket price. And personally, i dont view the zoo as something that needs another revenue stream. They're doing quite well as they are. I may not be popular in that opinion, but there it is. I love out zoo. But part of what is so good about it is that there is so much to explore, especially when you have little fellers. Having it in two locations, makes that now a choice you have to make on which one you go to. Do you go to the full zoo and see all the stuff or do you go to the aquarium and only see those things?

The aquarium in Jenks is nowhere near the Tulsa zoo, and it seems to be doing okay.

It’s not the same thing spread into two locations. The aquarium would be a fully separate attraction in its own right, likely costing well over $100 million and very expensive to maintain. A separate full admission - rather than a freebie or a pittance $5 add-on to a standard (already underpriced) zoo admission - is the only way it pencils. And to maximize that admission’s impact a downtown location makes the most sense.

It’s not the same thing spread into two locations. The aquarium would be a fully separate attraction in its own right, likely costing well over $100 million and very expensive to maintain. A separate full admission - rather than a freebie or a pittance $5 add-on to a standard (already underpriced) zoo admission - is the only way it pencils. And to maximize that admission’s impact a downtown location makes the most sense.

cosign

The only way you would have an aquarium at the zoo is if you scaled it way down to the point where its more like the two floors it used to be at the zoo. I don't even know if its the zoo really pushing the idea of aquarium or if zoo is just being asked to potentially come in and run it.

Do you go to the full zoo and see all the stuff or do you go to the aquarium and only see those things?

If the aquarium is built at the current zoo, there will already be too many things to see in a day, you won't be able to see all of them anyway. It isn't a bad idea to place the aquarium somewhere else; visitors can explore different areas of the town, much like those in Chicago, it's better for the city. There's nothing wrong with that.

I've seen plenty of other venues of varying types sell things like double passes. So as far as the separate revenue stream, very easily remedied.

It really seems this is more location driven than anything. In my mind this sounds like the classic Walmart moved 2 miles down from the old city center. Over time all the businesses migrate a mile down because the Walmart is now a Supercenter, and it brings in people from the small surrounding towns so they are trying to capitalize on that.

New big fancy resort and water park is going to bring in lots of people from outside the immediate area, so it's the next hot spot. Obviously the Zoo isn't moving, but when I see things actively not being put in an area where they've typically been, it makes me start to think the old area is at the end of it's life cycle and focus in the future will be elsewhere.

...

New big fancy resort and water park is going to bring in lots of people from outside the immediate area, so it's the next hot spot. Obviously the Zoo isn't moving, but when I see things actively not being put in an area where they've typically been, it makes me start to think the old area is at the end of it's life cycle and focus in the future will be elsewhere.

Isn't the zoo pretty much up against their boundaries on all sides so they can't expand horizontally?

I've seen plenty of other venues of varying types sell things like double passes. So as far as the separate revenue stream, very easily remedied.

It really seems this is more location driven than anything. In my mind this sounds like the classic Walmart moved 2 miles down from the old city center. Over time all the businesses migrate a mile down because the Walmart is now a Supercenter, and it brings in people from the small surrounding towns so they are trying to capitalize on that.

New big fancy resort and water park is going to bring in lots of people from outside the immediate area, so it's the next hot spot. Obviously the Zoo isn't moving, but when I see things actively not being put in an area where they've typically been, it makes me start to think the old area is at the end of it's life cycle and focus in the future will be elsewhere.
It’s in no way a comment on the Adventure District, which continues to gain traction. Look no further than the new development planned on the north edge of the Remington Park property.

This is about the best location for a first-rate aquarium, which is a VERY different type of attraction than a zoo, despite the common thread that animals are in display in both places.

It’s also not about OKANA pulling anything away from Adventure District; the development of an aquarium has been desired by zoo officials years before OKANA was announced, and the desire has always been for it to be downtown.

Putting a fancy new aquarium by OKANA sounds like a good idea since that means the Chickasaw would have a vested interest in keeping up an expensive to maintain attraction right by their fancy new resort.

It’s in no way a comment on the Adventure District, which continues to gain traction. Look no further than the new development planned on the north edge of the Remington Park property.

This is about the best location for a first-rate aquarium, which is a VERY different type of attraction than a zoo, despite the common thread that animals are in display in both places.

It’s also not about OKANA pulling anything away from Adventure District; the development of an aquarium has been desired by zoo officials years before OKANA was announced, and the desire has always been for it to be downtown.

I get what you are saying, but it doesn't change my opinion. I get that from an economic standpoint this location may make the most amount of sense.

I do not believe the aquarium is a very different attraction. The attractions at both are animals, regardless of how they are presented or maintained.

The way I read the messaging on here is just irritating honestly. Attempting to state opinions as fact is dishonest and it seems like an attempt to invalidate my feelings and opinion as a Zoo patron. Most of what's being said is political talk for "it's just about the money." And you know what, that's fine. I can understand the people involved want the aquarium to be successful, I do too. Clearly in their mind, it makes sense to put it here because it's got great potential for more revenue than being located elsewhere.

The way I read the messaging on here is just irritating honestly. Attempting to state opinions as fact is dishonest and it seems like an attempt to invalidate my feelings .

your feelings have nothing to do with facts .....


and people are stating facts as facts .... you don't have to like them they are still facts ..

Attempting to state opinions as fact is dishonest and it seems like an attempt to invalidate my feelings and opinion...

You should take a look at the arena thread.

I do not believe the aquarium is a very different attraction. The attractions at both are animals, regardless of how they are presented or maintained.

It's pretty common to have aquariums just completely separate from the local zoo. I can't think of a significant Aquarium I have been to in my life that was anywhere near the zoo that might happen to be in the same city.

It's pretty common to have aquariums just completely separate from the local zoo. I can't think of a significant Aquarium I have been to in my life that was anywhere near the zoo that might happen to be in the same city.

Aquariums tend to be classier and more upscale due to their higher maintenance. There's even different types of aquariums based on the demographic their targeting. Blue Zoo is aimed towards kids and nowhere near the level of scale of what were talking about here and even that cost's 20 dollars a ticket.

I'm not stating personal opinion, and I'm certainly NOT being dishonest in any way. I'm repeating first-hand knowledge on this matter.

And you know what? They SHOULD be thinking about revenue. I'm all for public subsidy for quality of life components such as a first-rate zoo, or a first-rate aquarium. But I also believe that paying attention to the bottom line is still important, and making decisions that result in less ongoing subsidy is responsible stewardship of the public trust.

Were a $100+ million aquarium built on zoo property, zoo personnel would be barraged daily by customers disappointed and even angry that their already absurdly-low $16 admission didn't also cover entry to the aquarium. Or that their even MORE absurdly-low Zoofriends membership didn't cover the same. OR, they would walk up to the entrance of the aquarium and get sticker shock that admission was $40 or $50 (yes, that's typical for aquariums) when they had just paid the ridiculously-low entry to the zoo. It's simply a different product than the zoo.

That only slightly moves the needle for me. I think my biggest gripe is the location. In my mind the aquarium should be near the zoo because, well it's a water zoo, and should be near similar venues. I personally would want to go to both on the same day, but being in 2 separate locations, I don't see myself doing that. Usually once we get the kids back in the car from an adventure it's to go home, because everyone is exhausted.

How many people are going to go to a waterpark, get soaking wet, then go to an aquarium? I doubt many residents. Now if I drove in from out of town and was staying at the resort, sure I can go change and go to other events easily. So then it starts to get me thinking this development is geared more for tourists than residents. And maybe it is and I missed that memo. We definitely need tourists attractions as well. Some function as both.

But in my mind placing the aquarium off-site from the zoo is not the best placement for residents.

Man, if you only knew that the Georgia Aquarium, maybe the best in the country, isn't near the Atlanta Zoo...lol

Zoos and full-blown aquariums are very, very rarely on the same property.

The aquarium should be near downtown. While we're talking about the zoo, I hope someday we'll have a world-class safari as well, OK still has a lot of empty land.

I only say that cause a buddy of mine is an agent with ATF who does investigations and undercover work and says there is constant sketchy stuff and crime going on over there. He hates taking his family in that area. But it is mostly undercover so I suppose we don't hear about all of it haha. I've never had an issue in that area either!

Sounds like the State Capitol neighborhood.

cosign

same. Okana/downtown/near a tourist area is a way better location for an aquarium. Look no further than nearly every other city that’s built one.

your feelings have nothing to do with facts .....


and people are stating facts as facts .... you don't have to like them they are still facts ..

No I was referencing the other opinions shared in this thread.

But nice attempt to stir the pot. I hope you have a better weekend.

Man, if you only knew that the Georgia Aquarium, maybe the best in the country, isn't near the Atlanta Zoo...lol

Zoos and full-blown aquariums are very, very rarely on the same property.

Man, wait until you find out I don't care about the Atlanta Zoo...lol

^^^ Why? chssooner is very knowledgeable on this issue.

Considering the director of the Oklahoma City Zoo came here from the Atlanta zoo it's worth talking about how things are/were done in Atlanta.

^^^ Why? chssooner is very knowledgeable on this issue.

Not knowledgeable, by any means. Just know that other cities much more refined and established than OKC don't have the aquarium next to the Zoo. What is good for the goose...

man, wait until you find out i don't care about the atlanta zoo...lol

https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdmMybGpqN3k2eXNtbGZ2bXl3YWZoaHh pczdmcG1sOGExNHZyNHUwMiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfY nlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/HQRgg6ks7nkyY/giphy-downsized-large.gif

http://reddit.com/r/reactiongifs/comments/2oddoh/mrw_my_amazon_package_has_been_out_for_delivery/

I mean just because its done that way in other cities, doesn't mean we have to do it that way. I totally understand your reasoning and why you're saying doing this outside of the zoo. I just would personally preferer that it be at the zoo itself.

For the person that mentioned then Jenks Aquarium was doing just fine. Again, just personal opinion here, but i dislike that aquarium a LOT. I will most likely never return to it. It was very overpriced and also wasn't honestly that good. It felt like a strip mall for tanks. Extremely UNDERwhelming and lacked so much that you get at basically ANY other aquarium in the country. The fact that it's all crammed on to one sprawled level the way that it is, makes it lack any sort of architectural interest as well. It's a major snooze-fest.

I've been to quite a few around the country, and going vertical does seem to the be normal pattern. They are also a mix of an arboretum and aquarium to make the habitats feel more integrated (which Jenks very much does not). Think Dallas or New Orleans. We could certainly do that concept, on the zoo grounds. And being an actual OKC Zoo facility, i'm confident that no matter where it ends up, it will be a good quality product. I just wish that it would stay on the zoo grounds.

Nm

I mean just because its done that way in other cities, doesn't mean we have to do it that way. I totally understand your reasoning and why you're saying doing this outside of the zoo. I just would personally preferer that it be at the zoo itself.

For the person that mentioned then Jenks Aquarium was doing just fine. Again, just personal opinion here, but i dislike that aquarium a LOT. I will most likely never return to it. It was very overpriced and also wasn't honestly that good. It felt like a strip mall for tanks. Extremely UNDERwhelming and lacked so much that you get at basically ANY other aquarium in the country. The fact that it's all crammed on to one sprawled level the way that it is, makes it lack any sort of architectural interest as well. It's a major snooze-fest.

I've been to quite a few around the country, and going vertical does seem to the be normal pattern. They are also a mix of an arboretum and aquarium to make the habitats feel more integrated (which Jenks very much does not). Think Dallas or New Orleans. We could certainly do that concept, on the zoo grounds. And being an actual OKC Zoo facility, i'm confident that no matter where it ends up, it will be a good quality product. I just wish that it would stay on the zoo grounds.

except it doesn't work financially unless it is a fully separate ticket ..

expect it to be in the down town "area" and cost 30+ dollars a ticket

except it doesn't work financially unless it is a fully separate ticket ..

expect it to be in the down town "area" and cost 30+ dollars a ticket

My daughter works at the zoo and this would be an every 5 min problem. If you buy a ticket to the zoo then you would expect the aquarium to be included, but for it to be viable it would have to be a separate cost, unless you raised the price to over $30 for ticket in. The aquatics has been a separate price for years and people assume it is included (same with sting ray bay, feedings, lorikeets, etc). Hell, some people argue with her about seeing the dolphins last year (it has been 20 years since they were there).

My daughter works at the zoo and this would be an every 5 min problem. If you buy a ticket to the zoo then you would expect the aquarium to be included, but for it to be viable it would have to be a separate cost, unless you raised the price to over $30 for ticket in. The aquatics has been a separate price for years and people assume it is included (same with sting ray bay, feedings, lorikeets, etc). Hell, some people argue with her about seeing the dolphins last year (it has been 20 years since they were there).

They could be connected but separate. Like Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure. They are two separate parks, you can get multi-park passes (for less than each park individually) to go between.

If you just want Zoo, you just buy Zoo, if you just want Aquarium, you just buy Aquarium, if you want both, buy a double ticket and be able to go between the two.

That isn't an unheard of setup.

They could be connected but separate. Like Universal Studios and Islands of Adventure. They are two separate parks, you can get multi-park passes (for less than each park individually) to go between.

If you just want Zoo, you just buy Zoo, if you just want Aquarium, you just buy Aquarium, if you want both, buy a double ticket and be able to go between the two.

That isn't an unheard of setup.

but don't have to worry about this at all the aquarium is going in the downtown area

Just a couple of observations from afar about the aquarium:

1. IIRC there isn't land on the zoo grounds to put a large aquarium facility without buying some additional property from Lincoln Park across the lake or the horse race facility.

2. The aquarium in Denver was built as a non-profit entity. It went bankrupt and Landry (Restaurants) Enterprises boughtbit at a bargain price. Its a decent aquarium but the best part is the restaurant on which one wall is a side of a large tank. So you can eat with the fishies.

3. I don't know if they still do it but the aquariums in Denver and Dallas had animal visitors from the zoo to increase interest.

4. I agree that a straight wall of tanks isn't going to be of much interest. The restaurant idea is cool but also a walk though area where you can look up at fish. I'm sure there are many other experiences and interactions that would make the aquarium more interesting.

Just a couple of observations from afar about the aquarium:

1. IIRC there isn't land on the zoo grounds to put a large aquarium facility without buying some additional property from Lincoln Park across the lake or the horse race facility.


what if i told you that the zoo owns all the land that remington park sits on ..

but don't have to worry about this at all the aquarium is going in the downtown area

Well yea, but that wasn't what I was responding to.

Just out of curiosity, how does the tax support for the OKC compare to other cities like Denver? My understanding is that we put a lot more into the zoo, as a fund, than the average bear (pun). I do not have any firm financial information to make a claim, but i'm wondering if we really would have to charge separately or if it would be able to just work like the zoo does today where the "experiences" are what cost extra. That crap drives me bonkers, but i understand. Controlling the expense of feed/etc for things like that really requires a paywall.

And I'll say again, the ability to go vertical is what would make it work on the current grounds. We could also claim a bit of the lake back for land if we really needed to. I'm just saying that there are plenty of ways this could work, if they really had an appetite to do so.....assuming the funding works.

What i've become a bit less of a fan of the zoo in is the fact that often you are unable to actually see a lot of the animals. I understand that the habitats are far superior for the animals. But my point is that if the people can't see the animals, it's harder for them to be appreciated. If you can't make a person connect in some way, then the interest in conservation isn't as strong. They don't need to be performing or anything like that, but I can't tell you how many times i've been through some of the Oklahoma Trails section and just have to assume there's a live animal in there because after a few years, i've never seen it actually moving around.

what if i told you that the zoo owns all the land that remington park sits on ..

That's an interesting twist. I bet there's a ton of excess parking for current Remington needs.

But l still think a close-to-downtown location would be better for overall attendance.

That's an interesting twist. I bet there's a ton of excess parking for current Remington needs.

But l still think a close-to-downtown location would be better for overall attendance.

just wanted to point it out and technically it is the OKC ZOO trust that owns the land and Remington has a very long term lease on it ..

They are being very methodical with this demolition as they are planning to reuse as much of the building materials as possible.

I suspect once they remove most of the wood roof, they'll get busy with the heavy equipment.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo120923a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo120923b.jpg

They started aggressively demolishing the old marine building now. Should be gone in a couple of weeks.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024f.jpg

The zoo has ended winter hours early and is back to being open 9-5 daily.

I went yesterday for the first time in years. As others have mentioned, Expedition Africa is now completely open although there is a small amount of work still going on. It's incredibly impressive and it was good to see they preserved the Pachyderm Building even though the hippos are no longer there and a big chunk of it is now event space.

I hadn't seen about half of the new exhibits and it's all incredibly impressive. It seems that unless you have kids or grandkids, you tend to overlook the zoo but it is a tremendous asset for OKC.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024ji.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024ei.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024fi.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024gi.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024ii.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024ki.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024hi.jpg

ZooFriends pass is still the best deal in town. I have the large family plan and named my mother. She just goes on days off to walk for exercise.

Did MIdwest Wrecking get a call to get a quick demo on another building somewhere? Noticing there is no heavy equipment in Pete's photos so they took the equipment with them when they left the jobsite.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/zoo013024f.jpg

While I am excited to see the new exhibits, especially penguins, so many of my 90's childhood memories happened in that place. :(