Quote Originally Posted by d-usa View Post
The Zoo has funded the feasibility study that showed an aquarium would be successful, so that had me confused. But you’re right that they were thinking about a different location, that was my mixup there.
Sooooo they can keep building these areas with convention size spaces and not so much actual animal habitats, but they can't afford to build an actual animal area in a small footprint huh? Most of the elephant area isnt actual habitat and the new Asia area is anything BUT animal habitat. The zoo's actually been chapping my rear a lot in the lat 15 years about how the go about their building in terms of their purpose. The purpose of a zoo is to expose people to the animals so they can raise awareness of those animals, thus creating a desire to preserve the animals. What we've really been seeing is a lot of fluff that doesn't serve a purpose.

The areas where the elephants are actually kept is great. But what's with the stadium section that never gets used? It's really a "show" that we didn't need to have. Why did we building a pavilion in the Asia area for meetings and events instead of creating space for animals to actually live in?

The hospital is a good example of something done right. It serve a purpose but allows people to see things going. on. Actually having people see what goes in to an examination or a surgery/etc makes people (and especially kids) start thinking of questions and spurs interest and education opportunities.

For an aquarium, the footprint is more dense than anything else on the property because of the water/cooling system. Save on exterior costs by making it multiple levels (like it is today). I just can't buy into the zoo saying they can't afford it given everything else they've done. They could crowd source the construction like they have the other structures/areas and sell of the sponsorship opportunities like they've done all over the park, so we're just looking at operating costs. I call bull.