OKC Zoo

[Zuplar]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[Jake]

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.

[David]

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.

[jn1780]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[chssooner]

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.

[Oski]

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.

[Bunty]

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.

[PhiAlpha]

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.

[Zuplar]

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.

[Zuplar]

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

[Oski]

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

[Urbanized]

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.

[chssooner]

^^^ 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...

[PhiAlpha]

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

[bombermwc]

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.

[Decious]

Nm

[BoulderSooner]

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

[Shortsyeararound]

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).

[fortpatches]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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

[mugofbeer]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[fortpatches]

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.