Zoo Architecture: Designed for Humans or for Animals?

Zoo Architecture: Designed for humans or for animals?

Unit 320: Dissertation Year of Submission: 2014/2015 Word Count: 5724

Caitlin Giddins-Byrne 653489

Contents

List of Figures

3

Introduction

6

Chapter 1. Early Zoos

8

Chapter 2. The Victorian Zoo

9

Chapter 3. London Zoo - The Modern Zoo

10

Chapter 4. The Contemporary Zoo

16

Chapter 5. The Contemporary London Zoo

18

Conclusion

20

Bibliography

23

2

List of Figures Figure

Title Image. Giraffe House. Zoo architecture that’s full of animal magic – in pictures. (20 March 2013). Retrieved

from The Guardian website http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2013/mar/20/zoo- architecture-animal-in-pictures

Page 1

Figure 1.

A Concept diagram by BIG. BIG’s Givskud Zoo makeover to offer “freest possible environment” for animals. (30 July 2014) Retrieved from Dezeen website http://www.dezeen.com/2014/07/30/ zootopia-big-givskud-zoo-makeover-animals-denmark/

7

Figure 2.

The Exeter Exchange Menagerie. Hancocks, D. (1971). Animals and Architecture. London: Hugh Evelyn Limited

8

Figure 3.

Early Enclosures at London Zoo. Hancocks, D. (1971). Animals and Architecture. London: Hugh Evelyn Limited.

9

Figure 4.

Reinforced Concrete. Modernist of the Month - Berthold Lubetkin. (25 Sept 2011). Retrieved

from the Modernist website http://www.themodernist.co.uk/2011/09/modernist-of-the-month- bertholdlubetkin-architect/

10

Figure 5.

Spiralling ramps. Modernist of the Month - Berthold Lubetkin. (25 Sept 2011). Retrieved from the

Modernist website http://www.themodernist.co.uk/2011/09/modernist-of-the-month-berthold- lubetkin-architect/

11

Figure 6.

11

Today, the pool remains empty. (Primary Source)

Figure 7.

Highpoint One. Lubetkin & The Tecton Group. (7 Nov 2011) Retrieved from http://danihunter. blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/lubetkin-tecton-group.html

12

Figure 8.

Open Planning. Lubetkin & The Tecton Group. (7 Nov 2011) Retrieved from http://danihunter. blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/lubetkin-tecton-group.html

12

Figure 9.

The Gorilla House was completed in 1933. Lubetkin & The Tecton Group. (7 Nov 2011) Retrieved from http://danihunter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/lubetkin-tecton-group.html

12

Figure 10.

The Gorilla House was designed to be circular in plan. Gorilla House, London Zoo. Retrieved from AJ Buildings Library http://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/2878 on 2 Feb 2015

13

Figure 11.

The Gorilla House provided limited enrichment. Gorilla House, London Zoo. Retrieved from AJ Buildings Library http://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/2878 on 2 Feb 2015

13

Figure 12.

The Gorilla House has proved adaptable to house other residents. (Primary Source)

13

Figure 13.

The Penguin pool has proved less adaptable.(Primary Source)

13

3

Figure 14.

The new Penguin pool. (Primary Source)

14

Figure 15.

The Penguin Pool still dominates its surroundings. (Primary Source)

14

Figure 16.

The Elephant and Rhino house. London Zoo 2001 - Asiatic Elephants at the Casson Pachyderm House. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.zoochat.com/43/london-zoo-2001-asiatic-elephants- casson-197702/

14

Figure 17.

A map of London Zoo in 1851, showing the green spaces. Plan of the Gardens of the Zoological Society in Regent’s Park. (1851) From the ZSL Archives, visited on 16 Dec 2014.

Annotated by C Giddins-Byrne

15

Figure 18.

A map of London Zoo in 1976, showing building dates. Zuckerman, S. (1976) The Zoological Society of London 1826 - 1976 and Beyond. London:Academic Press.

Annotated by C Giddins-Byrne

15

Figure 19.

Hamburg Zoo. Tierpark Hagenbeck History. (2011) Retrieved from http://www.hagenbeck.de/en/ tierpark/contact-information/history.html

16

Figure 20.

Bernard Tschumi Architects aim to blend the buildings and surroundings into one. Bernard Tschumi Architects, Zoo. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.tschumi.com/projects/61/

16

Figure 21.

BIG Architects Zootopia. BIG’s Givskud Zoo makeover to offer “freest possible environment” for animals. (30 July 2014) Retrieved from Dezeen website http://www.dezeen.com/2014/07/30/ zootopia-big-givskud-zoo-makeover-animals-denmark/

17

Figure 22.

Visitors view the animals in innovative ways. BIG’s Givskud Zoo makeover to offer “freest possible

environment” for animals. (30 July 2014) Retrieved from Dezeen website http://www.dezeen. com/2014/07/30/zootopia-big-givskud-zoo-makeover-animals-denmark/

17

Figure 23.

The central hub. BIG’s Givskud Zoo makeover to offer “freest possible

environment” for animals. (30 July 2014) Retrieved from Dezeen website http://www.dezeen. com/2014/07/30/zootopia-big-givskud-zoo-makeover-animals-denmark/

17

Figure 24.

18

The Mappin Terraces at London Zoo. (Primary Source)

Figure 25.

Gorilla Kingdom was designed with animals and visitors in mind. Gorilla Kingdom/London Zoo. Retrieved from Proctor and Matthews website http://www.proctorandmatthews.com/project/

gorilla-kingdom-0 on 2 Feb 2015.

19

Figure 26.

21

Proctor and Matthews designed Gorilla Kingdom. Gorilla Kingdom/London Zoo. Retrieved from Proctor and Matthews website http://www.proctorandmatthews.com/project/gorilla-kingdom-0 on 2 Feb 2015.

4

Zoo (n) An establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation or display to the public.

(Oxford University Press)

5

An Introduction to the Zoo The Zoo as a concept is not a new idea, but one that has evolved over time to fit different purposes and fulfill different criteria. As a result, the idea of ‘Zoo Architecture’ has developed over time in order to fit the shifting requirements, resulting in a variety of buildings, which each reflect the beliefs and standards of the time they were designed and built in.

I aim to examine the relationship between the architecture within zoos and how this correlates with the intended purpose of the zoo at the time of their conception.

Concisely, it has been suggested that Zoos can be presented as three entities – The Zoo as a jail; The Zoo as an art gallery and The Zoo as a centre for education and conservation. (Tarpley, 2008) Stacy Tarpley is a selfprofessed Zoo Designer from America, whose passion for animal conservation and a Masters in Landscape Architecture led her into a career in zoo and theme park design. Using her model as a base, I am going to explore how the zoo has altered specifically over three eras: The Victorian Era; The Modern Era and the Contemporary Era. Exploring these ideas we can examine how Zoo Architecture has emerged as a sub-division of architecture and how it has continued to grow ever since, thereby reflecting society’s perception of the zoo. I will begin by looking at where the concept of a zoo originates and how this developed from the 10th Century to the Victorian Era, working chronologically in my research to examine how

Zoo Architecture has developed, particularly within London Zoo, and how this relates to architecture outside of the zoo.

Finally, I will explore the limitations of further expansion to London Zoo, as well as alternative solutions to zoo design which are beginning to be addressed in Europe.

To aid my research, alongside using books, journal articles and online sources I will be visiting the Zoological Society of London’s library and consulting their archives. This will enable me to examine primary sources such as maps and guide books dating back to 1828, when London Zoo opened. This will increase my understanding of how London Zoo has expanded and developed since its inception.

Considering the controversy surrounding zoos, in order for them to survive today their founding principles must be to work towards the education of people and conservation of endangered species. However, is this actually the main purpose of the modern zoo, and the question remains, today, are they built for people or for animals? Hancocks addresses this in ‘Animals and Architecture,’ discussing the difference between a modern zoological garden and the early zoos which were described by Tarpley as ‘jails.’

His conclusion is that ‘the difference between them [menageries] and a zoological garden is purely one of intent. The modern zoo is a vital factor in the programme of conservation’ (Hancocks, 1971, p.112)

6

TRADITIONAL ZOO

MAJOR REINVENTION - THE SAFARI

ZOOTOPIA

Figure 1. A concept diagram by BIG Architects in Denmark, explaining the transition from the traditional ‘jail’ zoo, towards their ‘Zootopia’ concept, described in Chapter 4

7

Chapter 1. Early Zoos Historically, keeping wild animals was a way for royals and the wealthy to symbolize their power. The first instance of this was Roman Emperor Augustus bringing elephants with him when he invaded Britain in 43 AD and later, William the Conqueror setting up a collection of wild animals in Woodstock in 1066. In 1110, William’s son Henry I built a seven mile wall around Woodstock Park, effectively creating the first zoo. (BBC, 2010) In 1210 the ‘Royal Menagerie’ of lions, camels and porcupines was moved to the Tower of London. Initially these were private collections of animals, intended only for the pleasure of the King and court. (BBC, 2014) From the late 12th Century up until 1835 a variety of animals were kept in the Tower, which became known as the ‘Lion Tower’.

Each King or Queen expanded the collection and lions, elephants and bears came from all over the world, often as gifts from overseas Royals. (Historic Royal Palaces, nd) Elizabeth I allowed the public to view the Royal Menagerie for the first time, with free entry for anyone who bought along a cat or dog to be fed to the animals. (BBC, 2014) In 1793, Gilbert Pidcock opened The Exeter Exchange Menagerie, on the Strand in London, where the public could pay a shilling to see the animals. These menageries were the only places the public could experience wild and exotic animals and it wasn’t until the early 1800’s that George Wombell, a London shoemaker, had the idea of travelling animal shows. He worked on the basis that people outside of London would be happy to pay to see wild animals. This was the beginning of the travelling circus.

At this time animals were kept purely for the entertainment of the public, but for many, simply viewing the animals was not enough and in the 1600’s it was not uncommon for the Kings to watch lions and bears fight to the death. (BBC, 2014) The animals in the menageries were housed in small cages, with limited space, as ‘the type of housing provided for any animal was never designed around its requirements.’

(Hancocks, 1971, p.106). Despite likely being due to a lack of scientific knowledge, it would sporadically end badly when ‘occasionally an intelligent animal reacted violently to being housed in the dreadful conditions of the menageries,’ (Hancocks, 1971, p.122) It was this era that Tarpley likens the animal’s enclosures to being jaillike, as animals were squashed into small cages, with no enrichment and limited access to food and water.

Figure 2. The Exeter Exchange Menagerie, on the Strand in London, charged 1 Shilling to see the animals.

8

Chapter 2. The Victorian Zoo It was the Victorian fascination with Natural History that fuelled the beginning of the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), which was founded in 1826, with Regent’s Park London Zoo opening to Fellows of the Society in 1828.

In 1835 many of the animals from the Tower of London menagerie were moved to London Zoo. It was to become the first scientific zoo, forming the basis of our justification for zoos to exist today – conservation. ZSL clearly expressed their motives, being for ‘the advancement of zoology and animal physiology.’ (Hancocks, 1971, p.124) However, despite ZSL’s intention, it appeared that it was not easy to shake the initial perception of the zoo, as ‘London Zoo had from its beginnings functioned explicitly as both a symbol and an agent of national power.’ (MacKenzie, 2001, p. 290) It was also accepted by many, up until the middle of the nineteenth century that ‘nature could be made to serve even such trivial human purposes as decoration and entertainment’ (MacKenzie, 2001, p. 281) This was seen as an improvement on the attitudes towards animals of the seventeenth century, which consisted mainly of fear.

The Victorians were notorious for being interested in classification, organisation and science. Charles Darwin’s discoveries relating to evolutionary theory and natural selection in the nineteenth century changed the way we think about life and the natural world. It had a profound effect on the Victorian attitude towards nature, increasing their desire to collect, resulting in a need to organise; ‘during the nineteenth century procedures for preserving specimens and for recording the circumstance in which they had been collected became better defined and more widely disseminated.’ (MacKenzie, 2001, p. 285) This increased interest in nature resulted in the founding of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS).

The design of London Zoo followed the Victorian need to order and organise, with MacKenzie describing the layout of Regents Park in The Victorian Vision:

The animals were conceived as part of an interrelated, graduated zoological series – as a living representation of the standard vertebrate taxonomical categories. When, as was the case at Regent’s Park beginning in 1840, animals were arranged taxonomically – equines with other equines, for example, and felines with other felines – the exhibits showed nature kept in figurative as well as literal order. (MacKenzie, 2001, p. 291) At the time this seemed the most logical way to organize the zoo, with species of similar types and descendants being displayed together, though this is not necessarily a style that has been continued practice. In ‘Animals and Architecture’ Hancocks describes three main types of Zoo layout: by ‘Habitat’, where animals are grouped according to whether they live on grassland, forest, polar, aquatic and so on; by ‘Popularity’, strategically placing animals at different points of the zoo to create a route, and by ‘Behaviour’, the basic activities of the animals governing where they are situated in the zoo, around swimming, burrowing and flying. (Hancocks, 1971, p. 130)

Figure 3. A selection of the early enclosures at London Zoo.

9

Chapter 3. London Zoo - The Modern Zoo Decimus Burton was London Zoo’s official architect from 1826 – 1841. He designed the initial masterplan for Regents Park and the first animal houses, many of which still remain there today. Although zoos were now beginning to move away from the ‘mere recreational function of the zoo towards scientific study and research,’ (Oxford University Press) the needs and requirements of the animals were still not being considered in many cases. ‘Architecturally, most 19th-century zoos either followed current tastes and fashions or used exotic styles reminiscent of the animals countries of origin.’ (Oxford University Press). As a result of this, many of Burton’s designs still reside at the zoo but are no longer used for their original function, with the exception of the Giraffe house, which has housed the 4 and a half metre tall giants since 1835.

London Zoo opened to the public in 1847 as it was becoming expensive to run and needed extra funding.

They began exhibiting animals specifically to attract more people – Obayshe the hippo and Jumbo the elephant were among the crowd pulling animals. (BBC, 2014) Fundamentally a ‘scientific zoo,’ the opening to the public was perhaps a turning point in the intentions of London Zoo, as although necessary for funding, it meant that the ‘difficult dual role of the zoo as an institution was established – zoological science combined with popular entertainment.’ (Allan, 1992, p.200). This was further represented in the architecture, as they began embodying more of an artistic value, to enhance the presentation of the animals to the public.

Regent’s Park is home to two key modernist buildings: The Gorilla House, completed in 1933 and The Penguin Pool, built a year later. It was clear at this time that the Modernist movement taking Britain by storm was also having an effect on zoo design. The Penguin Pool is a prime example of modernism at the zoo and perhaps the most well known example. Built in 1934 and designed by Berthold Lubetkin & Tecton, today it has been described as an ‘iconic landmark of modern architecture.’ (Allan, 2011, p.81) The penguin pool was designed in a very ‘conceptual manner… his pursuit of a more abstract or idiomatic mode of display.’

(Allan, 2011, p.81) It didn’t aim to replicate the penguin’s natural environment in any way, but maybe suggest a ‘metaphor for Antarctica.’

The architect was aware that there was need for an enclosure that offered something for the penguins in terms of their welfare: the pool was designed so it was easy to keep clean, to minimise the spread of disease; there were hidden nest boxes in the sides to allow the penguins to shelter, and the walkways had textured surfaces to prevent slipping. In an article entitled ‘Competing Natural and Historical Heritage: The Penguin Pool at London Zoo,’ it is described why Lubetkin designed his ‘geometric’ approach to zoo architecture as opposed to the naturalistic approach that was fashionable in Europe at the time: Lubetkin was greatly concerned about animal welfare, but sentimentality did not befit his rationalist approach, nor did romanticism.

For him the quality of life in captivity did not depend on the quality of imitating the natural environment. The honesty of a plain and elegant artefact was far superior to the deceit and kitsch of a hyperrealist replica of the wild. (Shapland & Van Reybrouck, 2008, p. 15) The structure is playful, with spiraling, interlocking ramps made from reinforced concrete – a pioneering material at

Figure 4. Reinforced concrete was a pioneering material at the time and hidden restraints allowed the ramps to appear as if they were floating.

10

Figure 5. The spiralling nature of the ramps allowed the penguins to show of their comical attributes and provided enrichment.

The initial response to the pool was mostly positive - from the public, keepers and the penguins.

the time. These ramps showed off the penguin’s natural, comical characteristics, a side-effect of the modernist geometric form and design. Technologically the pool was advanced for the setting, the structure behind the ramps is concealed and camouflaged, giving the impression of them being delicately placed into the surrounding structure.

The reception of the pool to the public and the press at the time was fiercely positive, particularly in architectural circles. It was ‘a piece of theatre to display the penguins to the public,’ (Shapland & Van Reybrouck, 2008, p.15) and was described by the Architects Journal at the time to ‘exploit the characteristics of the penguins and produce them to the public,’ using the pools ‘theatrical qualities.’

(The Architects Journal, 1934, Cited by Shapland & Van Rebrouck, p.16) These attitudes demonstrated the public’s perception of zoos in the 1930’s, that the animals were being displayed in the zoo to be used as a form of entertainment.

However, the Penguin Pool didn’t come without its

criticisms, with one American critic describing the modernist architecture at London Zoo as having the ‘flavour of a circus or a county carnival,’ resulting in ‘the educational or scientific value’ being ‘nearly zero.’ (Ashford, 2011, p.214) The keepers of the zoo, who were strictly biologists and not ringmasters, welcomed entertainment in order to create an interest in conservation, as well as raising money from entrance fees. According to Peder Anker, a Professor of Environmental History, the keepers were not willing to ‘pursue amusement at the expense of their scientific

Figure 6. Today, the pool remains empty and the spiralling ramps no longer serve a purpose.

11

integrity.’ (Anker, The Bauhaus of Nature, 2005, p.237) It was also explained that it was ‘a promotion of public health [by use of materials such as concrete which were easy to keep clean] and not amusement that prompted the Zoo keepers to build modern architecture.’ (Anker, The Bauhaus of Nature, 2005, p. 237) This confirms that the playful form of the structure was not necessarily a reference to the penguins personality, and the theatrical qualities of the enclosure were merely a side-effect of the otherwise entirely functional design, in keeping with the modernist movement’s principles of form following function.

Figure 7. Lubetkin also designed Highpoint One in 1935, a luxury high-rise apartment block influenced by Le Corbusier and encompassing Lubetkin’s ideas shown in Figure 8. (below)

Figure 9. The Gorilla House was completed in 1933 and was the first piece of modern architecture at the Zoo.

This begins to explain some of the political ideas behind modernist zoo architecture. It was believed at the time that by displaying ‘thriving animals such as penguins in a highly unnatural setting,’ it could be proven that ‘humans too could prosper in new environments.’ (Anker, 2006) Solly Zuckermen (1904-1993) a noted British Zoologist and research anatomist for ZSL (and later secretary) believed that there was little difference between animals and humans, one ‘almost certainly of degree only,’ and we could therefore learn a lot from their behaviour. Although the Penguins in their new pool were admittedly in an unnatural setting, they did initially thrive and reproduce.

They were free from enemies, in terms of predators, they had regular food and their enclosure was kept clean, resulting in what the zoo interpreted, due to their reproducing patterns, as healthy, happy penguins.

Peter Chalmers Mitchell, zoologist and secretary of ZSL from 1903 – 1935 believed this was a theory that could be translated to the poor, ‘who were in desperate need of being liberated from their natural conditions of criminal and filthy slums.’ (Ashford, 2011, p.202) In post-war Britain this idea was put in motion, when Lubetkin applied the same theories and practices of his modernist zoo architecture into mass social housing, as ‘modernist architecture could provide a healthier home with better air and more light for the English poor.’ (Anker, The Bauhaus of Nature, 2005, p.238) It was not just the Penguin Pool that fuelled the modernist movement within zoo architecture. Lubetkin also designed the Gorilla House a year earlier, another modernist

12

Figure 10. The Gorilla House was designed to be circular in plan, so the walls could retract to provide a different type of space.

building, described as being an ‘architectural setting for the animals… to present them dramatically to the public, in an atmosphere comparable to that of a circus.’ (Anker, The Bauhaus of Nature, 2005, p. 236) It is another building that was technologically advanced for its era, being described as both ‘building and a machine.’ (Ashford, 2011, p.201) It was designed to be circular in plan, with walls and a roof that fully retract ‘to reveal a colossal cave.’ This meant that in the summer the gorillas occupied the whole space with the public looking in from outside, but in the winter the house could be partially shut so the gorillas and visitors were both inside. This was in an effort to create a controlled environment, protecting the gorillas from human infection.

(Design Museum, 2011) ZSL were so pleased with the Gorilla House that they were then prompted to commission Lubetkin to design the Penguin Pool.

Although the Gorilla House was the first building of its kind at London Zoo, it is probably not as well known or widely acknowledged, perhaps due to its initial failings as an enclosure. Its first inhabitants, Mok and Moina, were two baby gorillas who unfortunately died after six months in their new enclosure. Though this would appear to be an immediate failure, in many ways, and in the long term, the original Gorilla House has been more successful than the Penguin Pool. Being far more adaptable in terms of its residents, over the years it has been home to ring-tailed lemurs and today, the inner of the house half is home to fruit bats, whilst the outer half of the enclosure is being refurbished. Today, the former Gorilla’s home is now simply referred to as the ‘Round House’.

Figure 11. The Gorilla House provided limited enrichment for the animals, compared to more contemporary enclosures.

Figure 12. Today the Gorilla House has been adapted to house fruit bats.

Figure 13. Unfortunately the Penguin Pool has proved less adaptable to other residents and therefore lies redundant, beginning to fall into a state of disrepair.

13

The Penguin Pool however, has remained redundant since the penguins were removed in the spring of 2004.

Although efforts were made to introduce different species to the pond, the Grade I listing of the pool in 1970 made this an almost impossible task. Perhaps for London Zoo, it was time to accept that ‘many old animal enclosures are artistic highpoints, but modern standards of animal welfare as well as contemporary visitors expectations often make them ill-suited, or at least ill-reputated, as buildings for housing animals.’ (Shapland & Van Reybrouck, 2008, p.10).

It seems as though the Penguin Pool is destined to be a simple sculpture, capturing an essence of the past as many visitors will wander past and still hold fond memories of the penguins posing as puppets in Lubetkin’s theatre.

Although initially the Penguin Pool was considered one of great suitability to its inhabitants, to most people it seems ridiculous that only 10 years ago it was considered a suitable home for a small colony of penguins, even more so that the move in 2004 was originally only temporary, whilst their pool underwent refurbishment. It appears that despite ZSL’s intention of producing a centre of conservation, ‘The modern tradition of extravagant British concern for animals, turns out, like many others, to have been a relatively recent invention.’ (MacKenzie, 2001, p.292) It is also evident that the notion of animal welfare was not as prominent within the zoo’s values as it is today, regardless of the zoo’s status regarding science and conservation. It is only since The Zoo Licensing Act in 1981 that The Standards of Modern Zoo Practice have had to be adhered too, though the RSPCA did monitor the treatment of the animals as early as the Victorian Era, in order to limit incidents such as this: ‘Visitors, especially those equipped with umbrellas or walking sticks, were able to tease the animals mercilessly,’ (MacKenzie, 2001, p.292) The failings of the Penguin Pool as an enclosure can also be compared to the decline of the modernist movement.

Although modernism was initially popular as a social tool to solve the problems surrounding poverty from the 1930’s onwards, by the 1970’s many of the modernist housing blocks had been demolished, as it was found they simply did not cater for the social dynamics of family life. (Rowe,

2011) The fall of modernism ultimately resulted in the rise of brutalist architecture, mirrored in the architecture of London Zoo, with the Elephant and Rhino House at London Zoo being built 1965, in the brutalist style, by Sir Hugh Casson. The Elephant House is built from concrete, in keeping with the brutalist style and in reference to the rough texture of an elephant’s hide.

Figure 14. The penguin’s new enclosure provides a larger, deeper pool and is much more spacious.

Figure 15. Despite no longer housing any animals the pool still dominates its surroundings due to its form and materiality.

Figure 16. The Elephant and Rhino House also no longer houses its intended recipients.

14

Figure 17. London Zoo in 1851, showing the abundance of green spaces and the sparsely laid out enclosures.

Figure 18. London Zoo in 1976, showing the buildings with their dates of construction superimposed on top. I have also highlighted the green spaces to show how this has changed since 1851. The Penguin Pool is highlighted in purple, the Gorilla House in blue and the Elephant House in pink.

15

Chapter 4. The Contemporary Zoo

Figure 19. Hamburg Zoo was designed to be more open and less cage-like than a ‘traditional’ zoo.

Early 20th Century Europe approached the design of zoos in a significantly different way to Lubetkin. Carl Hagenbeck, from Germany opened the first barless zoo, Hamburg Zoo in 1907. To separate the animals from each other, and from the visitors he used moats, water and level changes, resulting in their enclosures becoming closer to a direct representation of their natural habitat. ‘Hagenbeck’s radicalism consisted in demonstrating that with careful study of their habits and capabilities animals could be safely separated from the public without being imprisoned behind bars.’ (Allan, 1992, p.200) Whilst designing the enclosures, he considered the characteristics of the animal, whether they could run, jump and swim, which therefore led to the correct boundaries for the exhibit. It would have been impractical to use water to enclose a hippo for example or a small ditch to enclose a giraffe, which could easily jump over it.

These ideas were fondly accepted across mainland Europe, with The Parc Zoologique de Paris recently undergoing a major refurbishment project by Tschumi Architects. 70 years ago it was constructed mainly from concrete rock, which since had become unsafe. The reconstruction of the zoo ‘builds around its important conservationist inheritance in order to preserve its identity while creating a new mode of animal presentation and educational experience.’

(Bernard Tschumi Architects, 2014) The development of zoo design in the last 70 years is evident as the Tschumi Architects describe their ideas behind the design. ‘For the

architects, the design concern goes beyond the decoration and mimicry of nature and moves into the specific realm and requirement of each animal.’ (Bernard Tschumi Architects, 2014) It’s interesting to note that they’re not trying to create a false environment that is simply an artistic representation of a habitat, but a functional environment which fulfills the animals needs, thus creating a naturalist enclosure, which could be interpreted to represent the animals original setting. They intend to blend the buildings into their surroundings, so as not to create a ‘zoo’ in the traditional sense, but to continue an essence of Hagenbeck’s ideology of a cage-free environment while also acknowledging that the main users of the zoo are the visitors.

Figure 20. Tschumi Architects aim to blend the buildings and surroundings into one.

A concept design by BIG Architects in Denmark goes a stage further. In early 2014 they showcased their vision for Givskud Zoo in central Jutland. They intend to ‘put the humans in captivity’ (Wainwright, 2014) by creating a central hub, surrounded by open plan enclosures for the animals, organised according to the continent of the animals origin. The viewing experience for the visitor is as far from traditional as possible, to completely hide humans from the animals view, by hiding them in bunkers underground, in hillsides and behind log piles, depending on the animal in question. All of the architecture in the zoo is hidden in the topography, and inspired by the animal it is accommodating, for example in the panda enclosure, the visitors would be hidden in bamboo boxes. BIG aims to create an environment where animals can coexist,

16

Figure 21. BIG Architects Zootopia concept revolves around a central ‘hub’ comprising of ticket booths, public facilites and entrances to the enclosures.

representing the idea of creating a city that accommodates for different races, cultures and religions. They say ‘We would like to build homes for the animals that are both tailor-made especially for them and at the same time have the qualities from their original surroundings’ (BIG, as cited by Frearson, 2014) which encompasses the ideas of Hagenbeck and Tschumi Architects in the reconstruction of the Paris Zoo. It is a fundamental aim of BIG to enhance the quality of life of the animals, as well as the visitors, the keepers and the zoo staff, but they go a step further,

or perhaps a step back, by hoping to ‘discover ideas and opportunities that we will be able to transfer back into the urban jungle’ suggesting that ‘perhaps a rhino can teach us something about how we live - or could live in the future?’ (BIG, as cited by Frearson, 2014). This relates back to the ideas behind Lubetkin’s architecture at London Zoo, that we can learn from the way animals behave in certain environments, and apply this to our own lives and way of thinking.

Figure 22. Visitors view the animals in innovative ways, from suspended platforms and hidden viewing pods.

Figure 23. The central hub provides entrances to the enclosures and public amenities.

17

Chapter 5. The Contemporary London Zoo Hagenbeck’s beliefs did translate to the Zoological Society of London in some respects, despite an existent prominent feeling of the UK always being one step behind in terms of zoo design. Hagenbeck prompted ZSL to open Whipsnade Zoological park in 1931, a new way of presenting animals to the public over 240 hectares, as compared to London Zoo’s 15. The design of the Mappin Terraces at London Zoo in 1914 also encompassed elements of Hagenbeck’s radicalism. An ‘extraordinary imitation of a mountain landscape [was] designed to provide a naturalistic habitat for bears’ (Zoological Society of London, nd) it has today been adapted to be an ‘outback’ exhibit, featuring kanagroos and emus. Hagenbeck’s ideas are still encompassed in this exhibit, using a changing of levels to not only separate the animals from each other and from the public, but also to show multiple species in one area. This also links back to the ideas discussed by David Hancocks in ‘Animals and Architecture’ where species are displayed in the zoo according to their habitats. London Zoo chooses to arrange the majority of its animals like this, with areas such as ‘Into Africa’ and ‘Rainforest Life.’

Figure 24. London Zoo unveiled the Mappin Terraces in 1914, which encompassed some of Hagnebeck’s radical beliefs.

London Zoo and ZSL’s intention has always been of conservation, yet it seems to have become more prominent in recent years, as they have adapted even more of Hagenbeck’s ideas into their architecture. The past decade in particular has shown a great amount of reinvigoration, with new Gorilla, Penguin and Tiger enclosures unveiled.

The new Gorilla exhibit, ‘Gorilla Kingdom’ opened in 2007

and was designed by Proctor and Matthews Architects.

It was one of the first ‘contemporary’ exhibits at the zoo.

The design process differed greatly from Lubetkin’s times.

Priorites within the design were different, with animal experts and keepers being consulted over a two year design collaboration, to create a landscape that is suitable for the gorillas whilst still addressing the visitors. Walkways are used to create a journey through the gorilla’s paddock, leading you into the winter enclosure and highlighting different views along the way. ‘The form and detail design of this viewing enclosure evokes the culture and materials of the Gorilla’s natural habitat without the need for Disneyesque pastiche.’ (Proctor and Matthews, 2007) The exhibit is a prime example of an enclosure designed both for the inhabitants, the keepers and the visitors, whilst keeping the architectural merits in the choice of material and form. It is constructed mostly of bamboo, which the architects believe to be the first use of structural bamboo in the UK, and also serves as a reference to the gorilla’s natural habitat. A simple glass panel separates the visitors and gorillas, giving the impression of being able to walk amongst the animals.

This approach adopted by Proctor and Matthews in Gorilla Kingdom makes reference to a research article entitled ‘A Modified Operational Sequence Methodology for Zoo Exhibit Design and Renovation: Conceptualizing Animals, Staff and Visitors as Independent Co-workers’ published in ‘Zoo Biology’ in 2014. It looks at the needs of zoo animals, zoo staff and zoo visitors and accepts that they all need to be met, yet they are always changing. It is advantageous to the designer to accept these three groups as co-workers and that by being in the zoo, the animals are fulfilling a job role. Tasks are then created that each group must complete, allowing designers to look at each group as equals, as opposed to focusing more on the visitor, and neglecting the animals, or focusing on the animals and making the enclosure difficult for staff to maintain. Kelling concludes that, ‘Exhibits should be more than just displaying animals.

Exhibits should aim to satisfy the aesthetic, educational, experiential, intellectual and emotional needs of human visitors, and provide a functional working environment for zoo staff.’ (Kelling, 2014, p.344)

18

This theory differs from one entitled ‘An Animal-AsClient (AAC) Theory for Zoo Exhibit Design’, a University publication from Canada in 2004. Although taken from a different continent, it is interesting to see how these theories compare to ones adopted in the United Kingdom and in Europe. It is recognized in the article that ‘a poor display can destroy the wonder of the rarest, most marvelous creature,’ (Conway as cited by Nuttall, 2004, p.76) It focuses on the behaviours animals would typically display in the wild, the timing of these behaviours in terms of their lifespand and thus ensuring that the habitat they are kept in whilst in captivity does not limit or change this.

By providing the animals with a suitably sized enclosure with sufficient stimulation, it is possible to create ‘an optimal environment for a displaced animal species [is] one that conserves animal culture in the fullest sense

possible by providing sufficient space and resource levels,’ (Nuttall, 2004, p.89) A way of doing this, for example, is to not just give the animals their food but make them ‘hunt’ for it, by hiding it in the enclosure, encouraging them to use skills that would be necessary in the wild. It is important to avoid a mistake of the past, identified by Gribl in 1975, The danger that the animal can be artistically planned into the inner and outer space of the enclosure as a mere decoration and thus show fundamentally no other attitude to the animal than was the case of the cages and showy buildings of past times. (Gribl as cited by Nuttall, 2004, p.83)

Figure 25. Gorilla Kingdom considers the needs of the animals whilst acknowledging the presence of human visitors and keepers.

19

Conclusion Even 40 years ago, many of London Zoo’s enclosures were deemed unsuitable for purpose or out of date. In ‘Animals and Architecture’ it is acknowledged that ‘Since its inception London Zoo has been carrying out an almost continuous programme of modernization,’ (Hancocks, 1971, p.109). However, reinventing the zoo gradually and updating individual enclosures comes with costly problems, as ‘each innovation however, tends to illuminate any lower standards existing in earlier exhibits,’ (Hancocks, 1971, p.109) Each change to London Zoo, whether an updated enclosure, or a removal of a certain animal, such as the move of the elephants to Whipsnade in 2002, further highlights the limitations of the zoo in terms of future growth. What happens to London Zoo when it is decided in the future that the new Tiger Territory exhibit, opened in 2013, is no longer suitable for its residents? Is the concept of an inner city zoo one which doesn’t justify the £5.7million that ZSL is spending on the new ‘Land of the Lions’ exhibit? There is a geographical limit to how much of Regent’s park London Zoo can inhabit, and a limit spatially to the sizes and types of animals they can house there. It raises the question of whether in the future, it will become a mere petting zoo, with all of the larger animals being moved elsewhere, to Whipsnade or even sold to other Zoological or Safari parks, such as Marwell and Longleat. Regent’s park may be destined to be a sculpture garden, or a museum of once successful Zoo Architecture, as the listing of over 40% of the buildings within limits the adaptation of enclosures.

In my opinion it is only in the last few years that Zoo Architecture has emerged as an entity of its own. It seems an impossible market to keep up with, as the function of a zoo changes, the architecture is required to keep up with this change, a never ending cycle. In Zoo Architecture, who is the client that you’re designing for? Lubetkin would say the visitors to the zoo, that ‘the task of the architect was not only to provide for the physical well-being of the animals, but to coax them to display their most distinctive characteristics.’ (Peter, 2007, p. 53) Hagenbeck would favour the animals, they should live in an environment as close as possible to their place of origin. Yet, around 100 years later, what is the purpose of a zoo today? A zoo would

not exist without the animals who inhabit it, but equally without the visitors to the zoo, there is no money to run it or continue the research and conservation. Furthermore, as the animals in Zoos are now mostly born in captivity, they have no notion of ‘the wild,’ they adapt to the situations their keepers put them in, and although it is important for them to be kept in suitable enclosures in terms of cleanliness, size, enrichment and food and water, it seems that designing enclosures that are simply a scaled down version of a remote part of South America is perhaps a waste of architectural potential.

Without endangering or having a negative effect on the animal, and whilst working in accordance with the Standard’s of Modern Zoo Practice (1981) and the Five Freedoms of animals as identified by the RSPCA, it is possible to combine the beliefs of Lubetkin and Hagenbeck to design exhibits which not only provide suitable living conditions for the animal, but allow the public to view them in such a way that they learn something from the animals, with perhaps an acknowledgement to their place of origin in the use of the materials, as Proctor and Matthews demonstrate in ‘Gorilla Kingdom’. It is important not to forget where the animals come from, but sadly for many species now, their natural environment is in fact, The Zoo. Without humans visiting zoos, they would not exist, relying on funding from entrance fees and donations to continue their research and conservation work. Visitor experience is a major factor in the way they are designed. If the requirements of the animals were the only consideration, they would be kept in enclosures that hide them from view, in the same way they would be hidden from predators in the wild. Instead, the zoo has to ensure they are visible at all times to please the customer and retain revenue. I believe that the architect plays an important role within the zoo, to equally balance this requirement with the fundamental needs of each individual species to maintain health, and encourage reproduction. With continuing research into animal welfare and conservation techniques, it is inevitable that Zoo Architecture will need to evolve alongside these findings, and be adaptable for the future.

20

Figure 26. Proctor and Matthews Architects designed Gorilla Kingdom with both the animals and the visitors in mind, ensuring the needs of the gorilla are met but also creating an interesting and educational experience for the human visitor.

21

Bibliography Allan, J. (1992). Berthold Lubetkin, Architecture and the tradition of progress. London: RIBA Publications.

Allan, J. (2011). Bridge of Dreams: The Penguin Pool, London Zoo. Docomomo Journal (45), 80-85.

Anker, P. (2006). Bauhaus at the Zoo. Nature , 439 (7079), 916.

Anker, P. (2005). The Bauhaus of Nature. Project Muse , 12 (2), 229-251.

Ashford, D. (2011). Gorillas in the House of Light. The Cambridge Quarterly , 201-223.

BBC. (2014). The story of British Zoos. Retrieved 10 26, 2014, from BBC iWonder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/z2njq6f BBC. (2010). Woodstock in Oxfordshire housed Britains first zoo. Retrieved 10 26, 2014, from BBC News: http://news.bbc. co.uk/local/oxford/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8717000/8717819.stm Bernard Tschumi Architects. (2014). Zoo, Paris . Retrieved 12 15, 2014, from Bernard Tschumi Architects: http://www. tschumi.com/projects/61/ Coe, P., & Reading, M. (1981). Lubetkin and Tecton Architecture and Social Commitment. Bristol: The University of Bristol.

Design Museum. (2011, Sept 25). Modernist of the Month: Berthold Lubetkin. Retrieved November 2, 2014, from The Modernist: http://www.themodernist.co.uk/2011/09/modernist-of-the-month-berthold-lubetkin-architect/ Frearson, A. (2014, July 30). BIG’s Givskud Zoo Makeover. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from Dezeen Magazine: http:// www.dezeen.com/2014/07/30/zootopia-big-givskud-zoo-makeover-animals-denmark/ Hancocks, D. (1971). Animals and Architecture. London: Hugh Evelyn Limited.

Historic Royal Palaces. (nd). The Royal Menagerie: life with Lions. Retrieved 10 26, 2014, from Historic Royal Palaces: http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/buildinghistory/royal-menagerie Hogan, J. (2014, 11 21). For the Birds. Retrieved 11 24, 2014, from Architects Journal: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ story.aspx?storyCode=8672680 Kelling, N. J. (2014). A Modified Operational Sequence Methodology for Zoo Exhibit Design and Renovation: Conceptualizing Animals, Staff and Visitors as Indendent Coworkers. Zoo Biology (35), 336-348.

MacKenzie, J. (2001). The Victorian Vision, Inventing New Britain. London: V&A Publications.

Nuttall, D. B. (2004). An Animal-As-Client (AAC) Theory for Zoo Exhibit Design. Landscape Research , 29 (1), 75-96.

23

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Zoo. Retrieved 10 26, 2014, from Oxford Art Online: http://www.oxfordartonline.com/ subscriber/article/grove/art/T093605 Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Zoo. Retrieved 2014, from Oxford Dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/zoo Peter, B. (2007). Form Follows Fun: Modernism and Modernity in British Pleasure Architecture 1925–1940. New York: Routledge.

Proctor and Matthews. (2007). Gorilla Kingdom. Retrieved December 29, 2014, from Proctor and Matthews Architects: http://www.proctorandmatthews.com/project/gorilla-kingdom-0 Rowe, H. A. (2011). The Rise and Fall of Modernist Architecture. Retrieved Jan 24, 2015, from Student Pulse: http://www. studentpulse.com/articles/515/the-rise-and-fall-of-modernist-architecture Shapland, A., & Van Reybrouck, D. (2008). Competing Natural and Historical Heritage: The Penguin Pool at London Zoo. International Journal of Heritage Studies , 14 (1), 10-29.

Tarpley, S. (2008). A Quick Lesson in Zoo Design. Retrieved 10 26, 2014, from Designing Zoos: http://designingzoos. com/2008/07/10/a-quick-lesson-in-zoo-design-history/ Wainwright, O. (2014, August 5). Denmarks Cage Free Zoo. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from The Guardian : http:// www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/aug/05/denmark-cage-free-zoo-will-put-humans-incaptivity Zoological Society of London. (nd). Architecture at Regent’s Park. Retrieved 2014, from ZSL : http://www.zsl.org/about-us/ landmarks-in-zsl-history/architecture-at-zsl-regent%27s-park

24