OKC Zoo

[Timtoomany]

Kudos to whoever drew these drawings. Beautiful work.

[BoulderSooner]

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

[Urbanized]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Zuplar]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[Zuplar]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[Tyson]

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.

[Tyson]

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

[BoulderSooner]

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

[Dob Hooligan]

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.

[TheTravellers]

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.

[Tyson]

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!

[pw405]

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:











This was taken with 3X zoom:


Normal/no zoom in the part of giraffe barn where you can walk through:

[bombermwc]

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?

[Bellaboo]

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

[Urbanized]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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

[jn1780]

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.

[Oski]

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.

[Zuplar]

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.

[TheTravellers]

...

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?

[Urbanized]

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.

[David]

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.