Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

The City as Zoo : Seeking Coexistence Through Architecture Yee, Meredith 2021-05

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Yee_Meredith_ARCH_549_City_zoo_2021.pdf [ 31.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0397492.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0397492-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0397492-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0397492-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0397492-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0397492-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0397492-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0397492-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0397492.ris

Full Text

                    The City as Zoo:  Seeking Coexistence Through Architecture Meredith Yee BSc General – University of Alberta, 2016 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture’ in the Faculty of Graduate Studies, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Architecture Program Committee Chair – Tijana Vujosevic Committee Members – Peter Woods & Fionn Byrne GP1 Mentor – Matthew Soules  © Meredith Yee, May 2021 ii    Abstract   As a demonstration of the relationship between humans and nonhuman na-ture, architecturally redefining the zoo has the potential to redefine prob-lematic relationships that we hold with nature. By creating “zoos” in the city through multispecies architecture, spaces for coexistence, curiosity, and culture are created for humans and nonhumans alike, challenging what it means to be human or nature in the Anthropocene. The City as Zoo reveals the hidden relationships that already exist between human and nonhuman nature within the urban environment, and seeks to make them not only vis-ible, but accepted. The City as Zoo places the human and nonhuman on equal terms, and celebrates the everyday interactions, phenomena, and beings that exist in the urban realm. Through architecture, the City as Zoo synthesizes the urban and the wild, culture and nature, human and nonhu-man, creating spaces where city dwellers can realise their place within a dynamic ecosystem.   iii    Table of Contents    Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ ii Table of Figures ..........................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. xii Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2 The Conservation Myth ............................................................................................................................. 6 Mock Rocks and Heat Lamps and Moats, Oh My! .............................................................................. 14 Architecture for Captivity ....................................................................................................... 18 Architecture for Spectating ................................................................................................... 20 Architecture for Consumption ............................................................................................... 22 Architecture for Simulation .................................................................................................... 23 01 African Village .................................................................................................................. 25 02 Air Conditioning ............................................................................................................... 27 03 Arena ............................................................................................................................... 30 04 Corporate-Sponsored Exhibit ........................................................................................... 33 05 Diorama ........................................................................................................................... 37 06 Electric Fence .................................................................................................................. 39 07 Fake Trees ....................................................................................................................... 44 08 Gift Shop.......................................................................................................................... 45 09 Glass ............................................................................................................................... 47 10 Heat Lamp ....................................................................................................................... 50 11 Holding Area .................................................................................................................... 53 iv  12 Hotdog Stand ................................................................................................................... 55 13 Immersion Exhibit ............................................................................................................. 57 14 Invisible Mesh. ................................................................................................................. 63 15 Moat ................................................................................................................................ 66 16 Mock Rock ....................................................................................................................... 68 17 Modernist Penguin Pool .................................................................................................... 71 18 Zoogeography .................................................................................................................. 75 Defining the New Zoo .............................................................................................................................. 85 The City as Zoo ........................................................................................................................................ 88 Rat Hearth ............................................................................................................................ 91 Intertidal Traffic Zone ............................................................................................................ 94 Museum of Urban Artifacts .................................................................................................. 101 Appendix: Welcome to Stanley (Zoological) Park! ............................................................................ 121  v    Table of Figures   Figure 0.1. Exceptionally early ice melt, Greenland. June 10, 2014 – June 15, 2016. By NASA Images of Change. From https://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=586#586-exceptionally-early-ice-melt-greenland. .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 0.2. Urban growth, San Antonio, Texas. June 16, 1991 – June 4, 2010. By NASA Images of Change. From https://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=312#312-urban-growth-san-antonio,-texas. ............................................................................................................. 3  Figure 1.1. Diagram of in situ vs. ex situ conservation. Drawing by author. ..................................... 7 Figure 1.2. Noah’s Ark. By Edward Hicks, 1846. From Wikimedia Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#/media/File:Edward_Hicks,_American_-_Noah's_Ark_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg .......................................................................................... 8 Figure 1.3. Golden lion tamarin at the Edmonton Valley Zoo, 2020. By Author. ............................. 10 Figure 1.4. Toughie, the last known living Rabbs’ Fringe-limbed treefrog died in captivity at the Atlanta Botanical Garden in 2016. Photo by Brian Gratwicke. From Wikimedia Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ecnomiohyla_rabborum.jpg ...................................... 13  Figure 2.1. African Village. By author. ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.2. Visitors at the Maasai Village at the Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle. Photo by Weston Renoud. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/weston/20189149/ ........................... 27 Figure 2.3. Air conditioning. By author. ......................................................................................... 28 Figure 2.4. HVAC system at the Panda Passage exhibit at the Calgary Zoo. Photo by the Calgary Zoo. From https://living-future.org/lbc/case-studies/panda-passage/................................ 30 Figure 2.5. Arena. By author. ....................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2.6. The Crocoseum at the Australia Zoo features both land and water elements for crocodiles to perform “natural” behaviours for spectators. Photo by Raffi Kojian. From Wikimedia Commons. .................................................................................................................. 33 vi  Figure 2.7. The Christian Martyrs Last Prayer. By Jean-Léon Gérôme, c.1863-1883. From Wikimedia Commons. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/The_Christian_Martyrs_Last_Prayer.jpg ................................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 2..8. Corporate-sponsored exhibit. By author. .................................................................... 34 Figure 2.9. Exhibit sponsored by Rogers at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. By author........................... 35 Figure 2.10. Thyme and Warner the Amur tigers at the Buffalo Zoo, sponsored and named by Time Warner Cable. Photo by ~Sage~. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/vickispix/2428386897/in/photolist-4GA7PB ................................... 35 Figure 2.11. Diorama. By author. .................................................................................................. 37 Figure 2.12. The Booth Museum of British Birds, c. 1896. From https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/20845993 ...................................................................... 38 Figure 2.13. The reptile house at the Sacramento Zoo, 2011. Photo by snowleopard. From https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/reptile-house.159303/ .............................................. 38 Figure 2.14. The king cobra diorama-style exhibit at the Toledo Zoo, 2018. Photo by Moebelle. From https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/mar-2018-reptile-house-king-cobra-exhibit.388350/ .................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 2.15. Carl Akeley’s 1890 muskrat habitat diorama on display at the Milwaukee Public Museum. Photo by Evan Howard. From Flickr.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/134669533@N05/24092994301/ .................................................. 39 Figure 2.16. Electric fence. By author ........................................................................................... 40 Figure 2.17. Electric fence at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Photo by Author ...................................... 41 Figure 2.18. HMJ Design’s “electroliana” vine. Photo by HMJ Design. From https://www.hmj-design.dk/electric-hot-grass-fencing ................................................................... 42 Figure 2.19. HMJ Design’s hot grass. Photo by HMJ Design. From https://www.hmj-design.dk/electric-hot-grass-fencing ............................................................................................. 42 Figure 2.20. Spec sheet for Total Habitat hot grass and hot vine products. Drawing by Total Habitat. From https://www.totalhabitat.com/uploads/2/2/4/4/22443352/all_products.pdf .............. 43 Figure 2.21. Hot vines in this exhibit are visually indistinguishable from other vines. Photo by HMJ Design. From https://www.hmj-design.dk/electric-hot-grass-fencing ..................................... 43 vii  Figure 2.22. Fake tree. By author ................................................................................................. 44 Figure 2.23. Fake pines created by NatureMaker Steel Art Trees in the Francois langur exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens. Photo by Blackduiker. From https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/francois-langur-exhibit.65889/ ................................. 45 Figure 2.24. A less convincing fake tree at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Photo by author ................. 45 Figure 2.25. Gift shop. By author .................................................................................................. 46 Figure 2.26. A display of stuffed animals at the Brookfield Zoo gift shop, Illinois. Photo by Michael Kappel. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/m-i-k-e/5540986237/ ........................ 47 Figure 2.27. ‘It’s endangered but you can save it’ t-shirt at the Virginia Zoo gift shop. By Virginia Zoo. From https://virginiazoo.org/2019/04/conservation-savvy-gift-shop-purchases/. ....... 47 Figure 2.28. Glass. By author ....................................................................................................... 48 Figure 2.29. A polar bear habitat is architecturally sliced by a glass panel. Photo by Valerie. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ucumari/2038077272/ ................................................ 50 Figure 2.30. Heat lamp. By author ................................................................................................ 51 Figure 2.31. A monitor lizard warms itself under a lamp at the Calgary Zoo. Photo by Grant Hutchinson. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/splorp/5261528/ ..................................... 52 Figure 2.32. Radiant floor tubing being installed in the Tulsa Zoo tiger exhibit. Author unknown. From https://www.achrnews.com/articles/143203-radiant-technology-allows-for-creative-flexible-applications. ....................................................................................................... 53 Figure 2.33. A tiger warms itself on heated rocks at the Tulsa Zoo. Photo by Dan Frisch/Watts Radiant. From https://www.pmmag.com/articles/100110-tulsa-zoo-utilizes-radiant-technology-in-multimillion-dollar-renovation ...................................................................... 53 Figure 2.34. Holding area. By author ............................................................................................ 54 Figure 2.35. Lion holding area at the Oregon Zoo. Photo by Oregon Zoo. From https://www.zoolex.org/gallery/image/1602/13 ............................................................................. 55 Figure 2.36. Lion exhibit area at the Oregon Zoo. Photo by Oregon Zoo. From https://www.zoolex.org/gallery/image/1602/9 ............................................................................... 55 Figure 2.37. Hotdog stand. By author ........................................................................................... 56 viii  Figure 2.38. Interior of the Crocodile Café at the Fort Worth Zoo, Texas. Photo by Geomorph. From https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/mola-crocodile-cafe-interior.95781/ ............................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 2.39. Animal food preparation area at the Saint Louis Zoo. Photo by Saint Louis Zoo. From https://www.stlzoo.org/animals/animalfoodnutritioncenter .................................................... 57 Figure 2.40. Immersion exhibit. By author ..................................................................................... 58 Figure 2.41. Woodland Park Zoo gorilla exhibit. Photo by David Hancocks. From Coe, Jon C., “The Genesis of Habitat Immersion in Gorilla Exhibits Woodland Park” (unpublished paper, 1989). ............................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 2.42. Woodland Park Zoo gorilla exhibit plan. Drawing by Jon Coe. From Coe, Jon C., “The Genesis of Habitat Immersion in Gorilla Exhibits Woodland Park” (unpublished paper, 1989). ............................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 2.43. Woodland Park Zoo gorilla exhibit section. Drawing by Jon Coe. From Coe, Jon C., “The Genesis of Habitat Immersion in Gorilla Exhibits Woodland Park” (unpublished paper, 1989). ............................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 2.44. Gorilla diorama in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals at the American Museum of Natural History. Photo by Wally Gobetz. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/32888858455/ ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2.45. Invisible mesh. By author .......................................................................................... 63 Figure 2.46. Metal mesh in the Birds of Ohio Aviary, Akron Zoo. Photo by David Ellis. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/david44149/42408287691/ ................................................. 64 Figure 2.47. Aviary at the Munich Zoo at Hellabrun, Germany, designed by Frei Otto. Author unknown. From https://www.dezeen.com/2015/03/11/frei-otto-a-life-in-projects/ .......................... 65 Figure 2.48. Moat. By author ........................................................................................................ 66 Figure 2.49. Postcard of the Nordland Panorama at Tierpark Hagenberg, 1910. Author unknown, from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carl_Hagenbeck%27s_Tierpark,_Stellingen-Hamburg,_Nordland-Panorama.jpg .............................................................................................. 67 Figure 2.50. Common moat types at the zoo. Drawing by author. ................................................. 68 Figure 2.51. A tiger cub about to take a swim test at the Smithsonian National Zoo. . Photo by Connor Mallon. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalzoo/10713007933/ ............ 68 ix  Figure 2.52. Mock rock. By author ............................................................................................... 69 Figure 2.53. Mock rocks in the orangutan exhibit at the Jackson Zoo “disguise” everything man-made. Photo by snowleopard. From https://www.zoochat.com/community/media/orangutan-exhibit-mock-rock-monstrosity.200063/ .................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 2.54. Modernist Penguin Pool. By author ........................................................................... 71 Figure 2.55. The Penguin Pool by Berthold Lubetkin and Tecton. Photo by FeinFinch. From Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penguin_Pool_London_Zoo.jpg ...................................... 73 Figure 2.56. The Penguins of the Humboldt Coast exhibit, by Studio Hanson | Roberts. Photo by Jessica Opalinski. From Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/40950210@N08/42401688380/in/album-72157698904372601/ ................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 2.57. Plan of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). By author ........................................................................................................................ 74 Figure 2.58. Swimming areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). By author .............................................................................................................. 75 Figure 2.59. Standing areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). By author .............................................................................................................. 76 Figure 2.60. Climbing areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). By author .............................................................................................................. 77 Figure 2.61. Nesting areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). By author .............................................................................................................. 78 Figure 2.62. Viewing areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). Grey area indicates the cross-viewing area where humans may see each other. By author ........................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 2.63 Off-exhibit areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). By author .............................................................................................................. 80 Figure 2.64. Zoogeography. By author ......................................................................................... 81 x  Figure 2.66. Zoogeographic organisation of the Toronto Zoo map. Coloured overlay by author. Map by Calgary Zoo. From https://www.calgaryzoo.com/sites/default/files/2020-10/Zoo%20Map.pdf ..................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 2.65. Zoogeographic organisation of the Calgary Zoo map. Coloured overlay by author. Map by Toronto Zoo. From https://www.torontozoo.com/!/pdfs/Toronto%20Zoo%20Map.pdf ................................................. 83  Figure 4.1. The City as Zoo interventions. ..................................................................................... 89 Figure 4.2. Bill Curtis Square in Yaletown, Vancouver. .................................................................. 90 Figure 4.3. Broadway-Cambie plaza, Vancouver. ......................................................................... 90 Figure 4.4. Helena Guthrie Plaza, Vancouver. ............................................................................... 90 Figure 4.5. Rat Hearth, perspective. ............................................................................................. 91 Figure 4.6. Hotspot map of restaurants in downtown Vancouver. .................................................. 92 Figure 4.7. Rat Hearth plan, 1:100................................................................................................ 94 Figure 4.8. Rat Hearth section, 1:100. .......................................................................................... 96 Figure 4.9. Rat Hearth section. 1:20. ............................................................................................ 98 Figure 4.10. Intertidal Traffic Zone, perspective. ........................................................................... 99 Figure 4.11. Intertidal Traffic Zone plan, lower level at low tide, 1:100 ......................................... 102 Figure 4.12. Intertidal Traffic Zone plan, lower level at high tide, 1:100 ........................................ 104 Figure 4.13. Intertidal Traffic Zone plan, upper level at high tide, 1:100 ....................................... 106 Figure 4.14. Intertidal Traffic Zone section, low tide, 1:100 ......................................................... 108 Figure 4.15. Intertidal Traffic Zone section, high tide, 1:100 ........................................................ 110 Figure 4.16. Intertidal Traffic Zone section, low tide, 1:20 ........................................................... 112 Figure 4.17. Museum of Urban Artifacts, perspective.................................................................. 113 Figure 4.18. Museum of Urban Artifacts plan, 1:100 ................................................................... 116 Figure 4.19. Museum of Urban Artifacts section, 1:100 .............................................................. 118 xi  Figure 4.20. Crow curation process. .......................................................................................... 120 Figure 4.21. Map of Stanley Park. .............................................................................................. 122 Figure 4. 22. Map of traffic routes in Stanley park ....................................................................... 122 Figure 4.23. Map of urbanised areas in Stanley Park. ................................................................. 122 Figure 4.24. Broad habitat types in Stanley Park. ....................................................................... 122 Figure 4.25. Habitat types at risk according to the BC CDC. ...................................................... 122 Figure 4.26. Sensitive ecologies as identified by the Stanley Park Ecology Society. ..................... 122 Figure 4.27. Old zoo building sites vs. New Zoo potential intervention sites. ............................... 122   xii    Acknowledgements   I would like to thank Tijana Vujosevic, my committee chair, for her continu-ous support and contagious enthusiasm. I would also like to thank Fionn Byrne for his insight and invaluable advice,.and Peter Woods for hours of stories about Stanley Park and the everyday beauty of life. The passion and knowledge that my committee shared with me will be forever appreciated.  Thank you to my family and friends that have supported me from afar. I love and miss you all and hope to be reunited in person soon. Finally, thank you to my partner Oliver for being my rock in this metaphori-cal storm. I am endlessly grateful for your support, advice, and cups of tea.    1         To our nonhuman neighbours I have come to know and those I have yet to meet. 2    Introduction   We are heading rapidly towards a sixth mass extinction event, if it hasn’t already be-gun.1,2,3 Biodiversity is being lost at a rate higher than the rates of species loss that char-acterised the other the “Big Five” extinction events,4 including the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction that led to the demise of the dinosaurs (along with 75% of all of the plant and animal species). According to one study, if the current rates of biodiversity loss continue unchecked, the magnitude of extinction will reach the “Big Five” benchmark in as little at 300 years.5 However, as philosopher and evolutionary biologist Telmo Pievani writes, “This time the asteroid (or the river of molten basalt) bears our name.”6 Edward O. Wilson, a leading expert in biodiversity, estimates that humanity has been responsible for the ex-tinction of at least one species for every 20 minutes of the last 12,000 years.7 The actions of a single species, Homo sapiens, have become the dominant evolutionary force for life on Earth.8 Human influence is transforming the Earth into an increasingly inhospitable place, and for many lifeforms the rate of change is simply incompatible with evolutionary processes (fig. 0.1, 0.2). The result is a wave of extinction that threatens our very exist-ence. At the 2002 World Summit on sustainable development, then-president of France Jacques Chirac stated, “Our house is burning down and we’re blind to it.”9 Nearly two  1 Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995). 2 Telmo Pievani, “Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Event ☆,” Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene, 2018, pp. 259-264, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809665-9.09216-8. 3 Anthony D. Barnosky et al., “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?,” Nature 471, no. 7336 (2011): pp. 51-57, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678. 4 Anthony D. Barnosky et al., “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?,” Nature 471, no. 7336 (2011): pp. 51-57, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678, 55. 5 Anthony D. Barnosky et al., “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?,” Nature 471, no. 7336 (2011): pp. 51-57, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678, 55. 6 Telmo Pievani, “Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Event ☆,” Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene, 2018, pp. 259-264, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809665-9.09216-8, 90. 7 Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003). 8 S. R. Palumbi, “Humans as the World's Greatest Evolutionary Force,” Science 293, no. 5536 (July 2001): pp. 1786-1790, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5536.1786. 9 Avec le président Chirac, “Speech by Mr. Jacques CHIRAC, President of the French Republic, to the Plenary Session of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. - Johannesburg,” Website of the Office of the French President, September 1, 2002, http://www.jacqueschirac-asso.fr/archives-elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/anglais/speeches_and_documents/2002-2001/fi005004.html. 3  decades have passed and humanity has simply added fuel to the fire. This is the nature of the Anthropocene.      To help stem the loss of species diversity, accredited zoos have stepped in as conser-vation centres that collectively manage captive populations of animals as safeguards against extinction. They operate much like Arks, sustaining populations of endangered species in the safety of captivity until the ecological “storm” passes and they may be re-turned to the wild. Zoos are also places where people connect with nature and learn to conserve it themselves. They are not simply recreational facilities – their purpose is firstly conservation, then education. For these reasons, the current model of the zoo as a con-servation institution is essential to combatting the environmental crises of the epoch. This has been the popular narrative of zoos in North America for the past 30 years.10 It is also a fiction, or a “rational myth”,11 told to legitimize the problematic architectural and programmatic structures of zoos that have persisted unchanged for the last half-century.  While by no means the source of the ecological crises that define the Anthropocene, current zoos are indirectly contributing to them. Although zoos define themselves as  10 Vernon N. Kisling, “Historic and Cultural Foundations of Zoo Conservation: A Narrative Timeline,” in The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation, ed. Ben A. Minteer et al. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2018), pp. 41-50, 49. 11 Todd Bayma, “Rational Myth Making and Environment Shaping: The Transformation of the Zoo,” The Sociological Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2012): pp. 116-141, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01228.x. Figure 0.1. Exceptionally early ice melt, Greenland.  June 10, 2014 – June 15, 2016.  Figure 0.2. Urban growth, San Antonio, Texas.Figure 0.3. Exceptionally early ice melt, Greenland.  June 10, 2014 – June 15, 2016. Figure 0.4. Urban growth, San Antonio, Texas.  June 16, 1991 – June 4, 2010. 4  conservation centres, the type of conservation currently employed by zoos does little to address the causes of biodiversity loss. The conservation mission also falsely reassures the public that by visiting the zoo, Nature is saved. This topic will be discussed further in Part 1: The Conservation Myth. Furthermore, the architecture common to zoos is exploi-tative to nonhuman animals, and thus promotes dangerous notions of human dominion over nature. The architectural devices and spatial conditions that are used to exploit non-humans will be explored in Part 2: Mock Rocks and Heat Lamps and Moats, Oh My! An Architectural Guide to Nonhuman Exploitation at the Zoo.   So, if zoos as they currently exist are supporting ecologically careless attitudes, why not get rid of them completely? While eliminating all zoos is one option, it will not help to redefine the exploitative societal attitudes towards nonhumans that have led to the de-struction of the biosphere in the first place. Nor will it address the lack of public aware-ness about the massive losses of biodiversity that are underway. While the issues related to climate change are widely covered in the media, the biodiversity crisis is not commu-nicated as urgently, and the public remains mostly unaware of local species at risk and the threats to their ecosystems.12 As problematic as they are, zoos remain useful as mass communication devices. With a global audience of over 700 million people,13 zoos can convey important information to the public about environmental issues. This is a critical position to hold as zoos bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public aware-ness, which is key to initiating political action.14 Zoos have also become important loci where an increasing urban population may interact with the nonhuman entities that have been excluded from society. It is therefore inappropriate to simply eliminate zoos, but also inappropriate to leave them as they are. A metamorphosis is necessary.  As John Berger writes in the essay Why Look at Animals?, “The zoo is a demonstration of the relations between man and animals; nothing else.”15 If this is true, then by demon-strating a different type of relationship, one based in biocentrism rather than anthropo-centrism, the metamorphosized zoo could be the catalyst needed to transform the exploitative relations that humans currently have with nonhumans. Part 3, “The New Zoo of the Anthropocene,” and Part 4, “Welcome to Stanley (Zoological) Park!” further explore  12 Pierre Legagneux et al., “Our House Is Burning: Discrepancy in Climate Change vs. Biodiversity Coverage in the Media as Compared to Scientific Literature,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00175. 13 WAZA, “World Association of Zoos and Aquariums Home Page.” World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020. https://www.waza.org/.  14 Maxwell Mccombs, “Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media,” Public Relations Review 3, no. 4 (1977): pp. 89-95, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0363-8111(77)80008-8. 15 John Berger, Why Look at Animals? (London, England: Penguin, 2009), 26. 5  the potentials of a reinvented zoo for humans and nonhumans alike. By fundamentally reinventing what the zoo is and rejecting the exploitative architecture and practices that formerly defined it, a model for the democratic coexistence of humans and nonhumans may be created; one that promotes kinship among all entities of the biosphere and sup-ports the healthy functioning of ecosystems, one visit at a time.  6  PART 1  The Conservation Myth   Zoos in North America began their transformation into conservation institutions some-time during the 1970s.16 During this decade, the organizational culture of zoos trans-formed dramatically, with leading zoos developing new goals and practices that prioritized conservation as a new mission. This explicit redefinition as conservation-based societies gave zoos renewed validity, countering the protests of animal-rights ac-tivists that opposed the captivity of animals with the authority of conservation biology.17 To support their new mission of species preservation, North American zoos began to fo-cus on ex situ conservation, or captive population management (fig. 1.1). In 1981, the As-sociation for Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), a zoo accreditation and advocacy group that accredits leading zoos in the US, Canada, and internationally, created the Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Program to collectively record, manage, and sustain the genetic diversity of captive species through careful breeding and transfers across a geographically-dispersed network of zoos.18 SSPs ensure that managed species will not become extinct should wild populations be extirpated; the ultimate goal for these programs is to ensure the genetic diversity of captive populations in zoos for at least 100 years or ten generations.19 All AZA-accredited zoos are required to participate in SSPs (other non AZA-accredited facilities may join as conservation partners) and in doing so further validate the status of North American zoos as legitimate conservation institutions.20     16 Irus Braverman, Zooland the Institution of Captivity (Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, an imprint of Stanford Univ. Press, 2013), 40. 17 Elizabeth Hanson, Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 164. 18 AZA, Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Program Handbook (Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020), 7. 19 AZA, Species Survival Plan® Handbook, 8. 20 AZA Species Survival Plan® Handbook, 7. 7   Today, AZA oversees SSP programs for about 500 species.21 This could be seen as a great triumph for conservation as these are 500 species that have been saved from the risk of extinction. However, this is not conservation, it is simply good business. The 1970s and 80s saw the implementation and institutionalisation of captive breeding programs in North American zoos because this is precisely when it became necessary for the contin-uation of the established zoo model. Before the 1970s, North American zoo animals were usually acquired directly from the wild.22 Wild animals were thought to be in endless sup-ply, and it was cheaper for zoos to acquire new animals to replace those that died than to try to keep their own populations. But wildlife was not the infinite resource that zoos hoped it was. Some species like tigers and rhinos had become so rare by the 1960s that zoo staff were often sent overseas to personally purchase individuals and bring them “home.”23 In 1973, a tipping point came when the US Endangered Species Act came into effect which forbids the taking of endangered species from the wild. By 1974, the US and Canada had both signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This left North American zoos with no other choice than to develop captive breeding plans for their collections; without captive breeding, they would soon not have animals left to display. David Hancocks, a zoo director, architect, and critic, cheekily refers to the SSP as a “Self Supporting Program” for zoos for this very reason.24 Without captive breeding, the zoo as we know it cannot exist. It is therefore necessary to “sell” the conservation value of these programs to the public so that zoos may continue to  21 AZA, “Species Survival Plan Programs,” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020, https://www.aza.org/species-survival-plan-programs?locale=en. 22 Elizabeth Hanson, Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 166. 23 Hanson, Animal Attractions, 166. 24 David Hancocks, A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002), 158. Figure 1.1. Diagram of in situ vs. ex situ conservation 8  enjoy an unrestricted autonomous existence as conservation institutions rather than having to admit that the primary reason for SSPs is to maintain zoo collections for the purpose of display.  The Edmonton Valley Zoo, an institution accredited by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA), sells the conservation value of its participation in SSPs thusly: In 1992, the Edmonton Valley Zoo joined the international Species Survival Plan, thereby taking an active role in the global issue of species conservation…Species Survival Plans are not a substitute for preserving animals in nature but are a strategy for creating healthy, self-sustaining, captive populations that can be reintroduced into restored or secured hab-itats. The ultimate goal of the plan is to release healthy animals into the wild.25 This description of the captive breeding programs practiced by zoos can be described as the “Ark paradigm.”26 Much like Noah’s Ark that preserved two of every kind from the biblical flood (fig. 1.2), in the Ark paradigm the zoo acts to conserve species in captivity until they can be safely released into a restored “wild.” This is known as ex situ conserva-tion. But just like Noah’s Ark, the zoo-as-Ark model is the stuff of myth. It is estimated that there are approximately 7.8 million animal species on Earth.27 If North American zoos  25 City of Edmonton, “Species Survival Plan,” Edmonton Valley Zoo, 2020, https://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_events/edmonton_valley_zoo/species-survival-plan.aspx. 26 Michael Soulé et al., “The Millenium Ark: How Long a Voyage, How Many Staterooms, How Many Passengers?,” Zoo Biology 5, no. 2 (1986): pp. 101-113, https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430050205. 27 Camilo Mora et al., “How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?,” PLoS Biology 9, no. 8 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127, 5. Figure 1.2. Noah’s Ark. By Edward Hicks, 1846. 9  have secured the protection of 500 animal species in captivity, then this represents 0.00006% of all animal species. The Ark is empty. But one could argue that it is prepos-terous to try to conserve all of Earth’s animals at the zoo (and it is) when it is only essential that the most critically endangered are conserved. Well, current zoos are not doing any better by this regard either. According to the IUCN Red List, there are at least 14,735 ani-mal species at risk of extinction.28 Even if zoos were to focus all their resources on the conservation of at-risk animal species only, they could feasibly care for a maximum of 800 species, or 0.05% of those assessed to be at risk of extinction.29 And there just is not enough area in existing zoos for them to take on a greater role in these breeding projects, let alone meet the current goal of 100-year population sustainability for established SSPs.30 It is estimated that all of the world’s zoo spaces for animals combined could com-fortably fit within the 212.7 km2 area of Brooklyn, New York.31 So, the Ark is not only empty, but also miniature. If the fate of endangered animals is left entirely in the hands of zoos in their current state, then the conservation practiced by zoos “feels less like Noah building an ark and more like Schindler making a list.”32 But what about the species brought back from the brink of extinction by zoos? Are these not the success stories of a chosen few, nonetheless?   28 IUCN, “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Summary Statistics,” IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2, 2020, https://www.iucnredlist.org/statistics. 29 Jozef Keulartz, “Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28, no. 2 (2015): pp. 335-351, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z, 340. 30 Keulartz, “Captivity for Conservation,” 341. 31 William G. Conway, “Buying Time for Wild Animals With Zoos,” Zoo Biology, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20352, 4. 32 Leslie Kaufman, “To Save Some Species, Zoos Must Let Others Die,” The New York Times (The New York Times, May 28, 2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/science/zoos-bitter-choice-to-save-some-species-letting-others-die.html. 10      The California condor, Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarin (fig. 1.3), and Przewalski’s horse are among the few species that have had populations re-established in the wild through the concerted efforts of zoo breeding programs.33 However, these are not the cho-sen few species that have benefitted from conservation efforts in zoos, they are the lucky few. A 1995 review found that of 145 captive-bred reintroduction projects studied, only 16 were successful.34 Of these, only a minority of the animals released were bred by zoos; the majority came from specialised captive-breeding centres. The success rate of these reintroductions is quite low for several reasons. Firstly, animals bred in captivity often lack the skills and adaptations needed to survive independently of human care. According to David Hancocks, “the longer a species remains in captivity, the more it biologically di-verges in important ways from a wild species, until eventually the individual animals can-not even survive in the wild.”35 So even if the animal is genetically fit, it often lacks the basic behaviours necessary to sustain itself. For example, predators in zoos never learn to hunt (the feeding of live animals to zoo animals is seen as inhumane),36 while prey  33 Taronga Conservation Society Australia, “10 Endangered Species Saved from Extinction by Zoos,” Taronga Conservation Society Australia, 2020, https://taronga.org.au/news/2017-05-22/10-endangered-species-saved-extinction-zoos. 34 Benjamin Beck, in Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation, ed. Bryan G. Norton et al. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995), pp. 155-163. 35 Braverman, Zooland, 58-59. 36 Braverman, Zooland, 36. Figure 1.3. Golden lion tamarin at the Edmonton Valley Zoo, 2020. 11  species do not learn how to recognise and protect themselves against predators.37 The zoo animal thus becomes a wild/domestic hybrid that neither thrives in captivity, nor in the wild. Secondly, ex situ measures do not address any of the chief causes for biodiversity loss that have threatened species in the first place. E.O. Wilson identifies the anthropo-genic causes of biodiversity loss as habitat fragmentation, invasive species, human pop-ulation growth and urban macro-agglomerates, pollution, and overexploitation through hunting and fishing.38 Captive breeding programs are not useful in mediating any of these threats and so must assume that habitats will recover though some other means. And thirdly, it is more than likely that the “wild” that zoos hope to return these species to does not exist anymore. Ecosystems are dynamic; they are constantly changing in response to the intense ecological disturbances we subject them to.39 It is therefore possible that the “natural” habitats of the animals saved by zoos have transformed to such an extent that they will never be suitable for those species again, regardless of the efforts spent trying to protect those spaces. As Dale Jamieson, a scholar of environmental ethics, writes in the essay “Against Zoos”,  If zoos are like arks, then rare animals are like passengers on a voyage of the damned, never to find a port that will let them dock or a land in which they can live in peace. The real solution, of course, is to preserve the wild nature that created these animals and has the power to sustain them. But if it is really true that we are inevitably moving towards a world in which mountain gorillas can survive only in zoos, then we must ask whether it is really better for them to live in artificial environments of our design than not to be born at all.40  Some zoos have realised the weaknesses within the Ark paradigm and have begun shifting to a new one, referred to as the “Integrated Approach.”41 This integrated approach “outlines a much broader conservationist role for zoos, including research, training, ed-ucation, awareness campaigns and direct support for in situ [field conservation] pro-jects.”42 In support of this new paradigm shift, AZA implemented the SAFE programs in 2015 that define specific and quantifiable goals for the protection of species and their  37 Peter B. Banks and Chris R. Dickman, “Alien Predation and the Effects of Multiple Levels of Prey Naiveté,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, no. 5 (2007): pp. 229-230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.02.006. 38 UNESCO, “Edward O. Wilson : ‘The Loss of Biodiversity Is a Tragedy,’” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2010, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/edward_o_wilson_the_loss_of_biodiversity_is_a_tragedy/. 39 Keulartz, “Captivity for Conservation,” 341. 40 Dale Jamieson, “Against Zoos,” in In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, ed. Peter Singer (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006), pp. 132-143, 140. 41 Keulartz, “Captivity for Conservation,” 341. 42 Keulartz, “Captivity for Conservation,” 341. 12  habitats.43 As of 2019, there were published program plans for 17 species.44 But how AZA-accredited zoos intend to meet these goals remains uncertain and participation in these plans remains voluntary. It does not appear as if a dramatic paradigm shift has taken place yet, and the situation is more dire than ever.   The final claim that zoos make towards their positive contributions to conservation is their function as informal science education facilities. AZA states two thirds of zoo-goers visit with children, and that 94% believe that the zoo is important for teaching kids about wildlife and conservation.45 CAZA similarly argues that one of the main justifications for the existence of zoos is to “be the catalyst that inspires a new generation of conservation-ists to carry out more research, rehabilitate more habitats, reintroduce more species and educate more people.”46 Well, how does the zoo fare in this regard? The evidence to date of the value of zoo education on visitor perceptions and behaviours is inclusive at best. One study conducted found that only 34% of children that visited a zoo had positive learn-ing outcomes regarding conservation-related ideas. This means that 66% showed no learning at all or, worse, had negative learning outcomes (i.e. demonstrated poorer knowledge of conservation and biodiversity) after their visit.47 It does not seem as if zoos are inspiring many future conservationists; they are mostly inspiring misguided views about Nature.   The modern zoo is not the conservation centre that they proudly proclaim to be. The ex-situ breeding programs that they practice are primarily for keeping their exhibits full and ticket sales up rather than for the protection of endangered species, and their contri-butions to in situ programs probably lessen the doubts in visitors’ minds more than the threats to biodiversity. This is not to say that zoos could never be conservation centres, nor that they do not contribute anything to biodiversity conservation, but it would be more appropriate to state that the successes that they have had were due to the heroic efforts of a few individuals rather than due to the innate structure or program of zoos themselves.48 By labelling themselves as “conservation centres” they are misleading the public about the nature of their operations. The zoogoer may think that by visiting a zoo, Nature is  43 AZA, “AZA-Accredited Zoos and Aquariums are Saving Endangered Animals from Extinction,” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2019, https://www.aza.org/aza-news-releases/posts/aza-accredited-zoos-and-aquariums-are-saving--endangered-animals-from-extinction-?locale=en. 44 AZA, “SAFE 2019 Annual Report” (Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2019), pp. 1-18, 1. 45 AZA, “Visitor Demographics,” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020, https://www.aza.org/partnerships-visitor-demographics?locale=en. 46 CAZA, “Our Work,” Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, June 28, 2017, https://caza.ca/. 47 Eric Jensen, “Evaluating Children's Conservation Biology Learning at the Zoo,” Conservation Biology 28, no. 4 (2014): pp. 1004-1011, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12263, 1109. 48 Hancocks, A Different Nature, 157. 13  saved! This is obviously far from the truth. As Susan Willis wrote in 1999, “Visit a zoo and you walk through a living cemetery of all that is diminishing, disappearing, and soon to be gone”49 (fig. 1.4). This is still true of the zoo two decades later and, without a drastic conceptual reinvention, will probably be true for the foreseen future. So, if the zoo is not a site for wildlife conservation, then what is it? In the following chapter, I will argue that the modern zoo is no more than the architectural manifestation of humanity’s exploita-tive relationship with nonhumans.  49 Susan Willis, “Looking at the Zoo,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 98, no. 4 (1999): pp. 669-687, 674. Figure 1.4. Toughie, the last known living Rabbs’ Fringe-limbed treefrog died in captivity at the Atlanta Botanical Garden in 2016. 14  PART 2  Mock Rocks and Heat Lamps and Moats, Oh My!   An Architectural Guide to Nonhuman Exploitation at the Zoo   In “Why Look at Animals?”, John Berger states, “The zoo is a demonstration of the rela-tions between man and animals; nothing else.”50 I will argue that this statement should read “The zoo is an architectural demonstration of the relations between man and animals; nothing else.” While zoos may claim to be creating reverence and respect for nature by bringing humans and nonhumans together, the relationship between humans and nature projected by zoo architecture is inherently exploitative. The zoo physically asserts that humans and nonhumans are not and can never be equals; humans have dominion over nature which may be captured, viewed, consumed, and simulated at will for our enter-tainment. The conservation efforts of zoos, as flawed as they are, are therefore futile if the architectural structures that produce nonhuman otherness are not first identified and addressed. Without architectural reinvention, the zoo will continue to reinforce the an-thropocentric and speciesist worldviews that threaten the existence of all living things.    50 Berger, Why Look at Animals?, 26.  15  15 16  17      18  Architecture for Captivity   The architecture for captivity is perhaps the most obvious type of exploita-tive architecture at the zoo. It can be defined as any element, device, or spatial condition that acts to restrict the free movement of another. It is not a radical position to state that captivity is morally questionable, especially if the architecture employed is explicitly prison-like. A utilitarian defense for such a practice is captivity may be ethically permissible if the benefits to the species as a whole were to outweigh the costs of depriving a few indi-viduals of their right to freedom.51 But as explained in the previous chapter, zoos have failed to demonstrate any substantial benefits of captivity for wild conspecifics. The architecture for captivity exploits nonhuman animals for the purpose of human entertainment, not for the survival of their species. The type of human-animal encounters that one expects at the zoo are en-abled by the architecture for captivity. Whereas animals typically flee from humans in the wild, captivity guarantees close encounters with Nature at the zoo through the removal of nonhuman agency. It keeps humans and nonhumans safe by preventing their physical interaction. However, the ar-chitecture of captivity also acts to physically reinforce the cultural divisions between humans and nature. Captivity strictly defines the realms of humans from the other at the zoo. Barriers may not be trespassed by human nor nonhuman as the violation of the boundaries of these created territories often results in violence or death. The barriers that physically separate hu-mans from nonhumans project the idea that humans and animals cannot coexist in the same space without an expectation of violence. It reinforces that animals belong in segregation where they are safe from humans and where humans are safe from them. In addition to removing their physical freedom, captivity removes the free-dom of animals to express natural behaviours or make choices, objectifying them by removing their subjectivity.52 It prevents them from choosing their own social groups or mates, and from expressing instinctual behaviours such as hunting, foraging, or competing for resources. This is known to  51 Jamieson, “Against Zoos,” pp. 132-143. 52 Nelly Mäekivi, “Freedom in Captivity: Managing Zoo Animals According to the ‘Five Freedoms,’” Biosemiotics 11, no. 1 (February 2018): pp. 7-25, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9311-5, 20. 19  cause psychological distress,53 especially for larger, more intelligent spe-cies, or those that would have had large home ranges outside of the zoo.54 While zoo directors may claim that their animals are ambassadors for their wild counterparts, we must ask whether removing the autonomy of nonhu-mans through captivity is really necessary to teach the public about the value of other species. As zoos have moved away from the iron bars and bare concrete cells that formerly characterized exhibit spaces, the architecture and devices for nonhuman captivity have become less salient. But make no mistake, they are still there, now camouflaged as more benign elements as to not upset the human guests.   53 Georgia J. Mason, “Stereotypies: a Critical Review,” Animal Behaviour 41, no. 6 (1991): pp. 1015-1037, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80640-2, 1017. 54 Ros Clubb and Georgia Mason, “Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging Carnivores,” Nature 425, no. 6957 (2003): pp. 473-474, https://doi.org/10.1038/425473a. 20  Architecture for Spectating   The zoo is attractive to visitors because of the opportunities it provides to see nonhuman animals, preferably doing something – the zoo after all is based on the spectacle of the menagerie. And when it does not provide a clear view or the view is not exciting enough, the asking of “Where is it?” or the impatient tapping of fingers against glass are typical reactions. The design of the exhibits must therefore prioritize the viewing of animals. How-ever, this value placed on viewing at the zoo is paradoxical. As Irus Braver-man writes “Zoo designers and architects face unique challenges in their construction of scopic regimes. They must bridge the inherent contradic-tion that the very act of seeing wild animals undermines their wildness.”55 In the wild, nonhuman animals usually do not allow themselves to be seen except for by their traces. Animals that are forced into view through behav-iourally restrictive architecture are the nonconsenting actors in the zoo’s “play” on nature. In this way, the architecture for spectating and for captivity often go hand in hand. There is no scopic scheme at the zoo that is non-exploitative because they are all unidirectional; at the zoo, humans may view other animals, but other animals may never view them. This is because architecture of the zoo does not allow for nonhuman animals to return the gaze of humans. In the essay “Why Look at Animals?” John Berger writes, The zoo cannot but disappoint. The public purpose of zoos is to offer visitors the opportunity of looking at animals. Yet nowhere in a zoo can a stranger encounter the look of an animal. At the most, the animal’s gaze flickers and passes on. They look sideways. They look blindly beyond. They scan mechanically. They have been immunised to encounter, because nothing can any more occupy a central place in their attention.56 According to Berger, the zoo animal has been so marginalized that no amount of proximity can ever bring the subject of our gaze to gaze back at us. This is not because they cannot see us, but because they are forced to see us. Desensitization to the human’s gaze could be a mechanism to cope with the stress of being constantly viewed. The exhibits thus act as a sort  55 Braverman, Zooland, 71. 56 Berger, “Why Look at Animals?,” 28. 21  of reverse panopticon, with the human viewers gazing from the periphery into a central surveilled space of the animal.57 However, here the act of viewing disciplines the viewer about “correct” human-nature relations58 – that the proper place of Nature is where we can see it, and therefore care about it, preferably from the other side of a plexiglass window. If we cannot see it, then it does not matter, nor can it command our respect. In this way, the architecture for spectating further alienates us from the less visible na-ture that (sensibly) conceals itself from our view, allowing us to continue to exploit it comfortably out of sight and out of mind.  57 Ralph Acampora, “Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices,” Society & Animals 13, no. 1 (2005): pp. 69-88, https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530053966643, 79. 58 Braverman, Zooland, 20. 22  Architecture for Consumption   As a place for leisure, the zoo must compete with the theme parks, malls, and movie theatres for the free time and money of the public. The zoo and its architecture must therefore present its animals as marketable, profitable objects that visitors want to buy – the economic viability of the zoo depends on it. The architecture for consumption is thus any architecture that facili-tates the consumption of nature as goods or experiences at the zoo.  Consumption of nature at the zoo can be either literal (as food) or figurative (as symbols or experiences). How it is consumed depends on how “natural” that nature is perceived to be. In Uneven Development, Neil Smith defines two types of nature: “first nature” is the pristine, unspoiled nature that exists outside of human society; “second nature” is the spoiled nature that has been transformed by or incorporated into human society.59 Whereas the tiger (first nature) is consumed through plush toys and T-shirts at the gift shop, the unknown animals that constitute the hotdogs (second nature) at a concession stand are eaten without a second thought. The architecture for consuming nature at the zoo thus reinforces the socially constructed bifurcation of first and second natures by commodifying the keeping of the former, and the killing of the latter. No matter what form it takes, the architecture for consumption at the zoo is inherently exploitative because it promotes the commodification of nature – that is the valuing of nonhumans solely for their economic value. If it can-not be consumed, then it does not matter at the zoo and if it does not matter at the zoo, then it is not nature. The architecture for consumption perpetu-ates the consumerist, capitalist culture that has led to the destruction of the biosphere in the first place and that threatens the existence of every living being. It is fanning the flames of the extinction crisis that the zoo itself claims to be combatting.   59 Neil Smith, Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space, 3rd ed. (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2008), 65-66. 23  Architecture for Simulation   At the zoo, one encounters a simulation of nature through the form of nat-uralistic exhibits. This Nature is entirely human-made and made to look even more perfect than the real thing.60 The version of nature simulated by the zoo is one that is aesthetically pleasing, exotic, sanitized, and devoid of human presence – it is first nature, and it is a fiction.  The creation of first nature at the zoo is achieved through various architec-tural means. The first is by making human interventions invisible.61 In the simulation of Nature in an exhibit, the obviously human-made or unnatural looking infrastructure must be hidden from view as to not spoil the illusion. This functional architecture is hidden away in “off-exhibit” areas of the zoo or disguised as more natural features. This camouflage of obvious architec-ture is not for the benefit of the animals; zoo animals spend much of their day in the highly unnatural areas that are concealed from public view.62 In fact, some animals prefer to remain in these areas rather than spend time in the naturalistic exhibits. As zoo designer Jon Coe explains, “…the animal does not care what it [the architecture] looks like as long as it can function naturally.”63 The naturalistic appearance of exhibits is therefore for the pleasure of zoo-visitors so that they may see animals in Nature. The animals are performers, and the exhibit a set in the performance of Nature put on to entertain the masses. The second way that architecture is used to simulate nature at the zoo is through synthetic Nature. Synthetic Nature is any man-made object that is made to represent another natural object or nonhuman entity (e.g. a tree) and is used to give naturalistic exhibits the impression of authenticity. With-out the use of synthetic Nature, the exhibited animals risk looking out of place, breaking the illusion of Nature that the zoo is trying to convey. If an animal appears alien in its exhibit, then it risks being perceived by the public as unnatural or domesticated, rather than a “wild” representative of its spe-cies.64 In this way, the architecture for simulation also acts to simulate the  60 Braverman, Zooland, 36. 61 Braverman, Zooland, 33. 62 Braverman, Zooland, 83. 63 Braverman, Zooland, 35. 64 Ted Finlay, Lawrence R. James, and Terry L. Maple, “People's Perceptions of Animals,” Environment and Behavior 20, no. 4 (1988): pp. 508-528, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588204008, 522. 24  animals themselves – they become tokens of “wild” animals rather than captive-bred zoo animals.65 The architecture for simulation at the zoo presents a carefully designed, perfect first nature. Unfortunately, this Nature does not exist anywhere but the zoo. Zoos have thus become simulacra of nature; they are “counterfeits no longer obligated to reality.”66 And while the illusion of Nature may be entertaining, it threatens the nonhuman entities excluded from Nature that are deemed not worthy of protection by zoos. Unfortunately, this includes most of nonhuman life, as there is no ecosystem on Earth that is untouched by modern human society.  65 David Grazian, “Where the Wild Things Aren't: Exhibiting Nature in American Zoos,” The Sociological Quarterly 53, no. 4 (January 2012): pp. 546-565, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01249.x, 558. 66 David W. Blades, “The Simulacra of Science Education,” in (Post) Modern Science (Education): Propositions and Alternative Paths, ed. John A. Weaver, Peter Michael Appelbaum, and Marla Morris (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2001), pp. 57-94, 63. 25  01 African Village  Figure 2.1. African Village. 26  The “African Village” appears in this guide not be-cause it is exploitative in itself, but because the reac-tions to its presence are examples of exploitative attitudes towards nature. In 2007, the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington, debuted their Maa-sai Adventure exhibit, which featured a recreation of a traditional Maasai village and employed people of Maasai descent as interpreters.67 The interpreters (wearing standard zoo uniforms) recounted stories about their home villages, about how drought and climate change affected them or their families, and about the traditional interdependence of the Maasai people with nonhuman animals.  Reactions to the new exhibit were swift and negative, with critics stating that the exhibit was too similar to the “human zoos” of the late 19th and early 20th century that displayed indigenous peoples as subhu-man animals. One critic stated that “I find it a bit dis-turbing that you’re going to get to know a culture in a zoo setting.”68 Another stated that “Human culture does not belong in a zoo.”69 This reaction is demonstrative of the strict nature-culture divide that zoos have traditionally reinforced. That the mere presence of indigenous interpreters among nonhuman animals was enough to dehuman-ise them in the eyes of the public is telling of the dis-turbing relationship that we have with nature in North America. Although the Maasai interpreters defended their positions as vital conservation educators at the zoo, their presence was rejected as humans may not consider themselves to be a part of nature at the zoo.70 The Maasai people transgress the human-subject/animal-object divide of Western culture, which a critic described as “blurring a dangerous line”.71 However, zoo designer Jon Coe believes that it is both appropriate and necessary for zoos to pre-sent nature and culture together. As he states, “These current exhibits emphasize the  67 Manuel Valdes, “A Misguided Use of Zoo Guides?,” The Seattle Times (The Seattle Times Company, August 8, 2007), https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a-misguided-use-of-zoo-guides/. 68 Valdes, “Misguided Use” 69 Valdes, “Misguided Use” 70 Braverman, Zooland, 74. 71 Valdes, “Misguided Use” 27  interrelationship between traditional peoples and wildlife… [and] alert people to the parallel extinction of wilderness and traditional cultures.”72 Similar rejections of indigenous people have oc-curred when Maasai villagers in northern Tanzania were evicted from their land for the creation of pri-vate safari parks,73 and when First Nations people were evicted from what is now Stanley Park (see Part 4, “Welcome to Stanley (Zoological) Park!).   72 Jon Coe Design, “Trends in Zoo Exhibits,” Jon Coe Design Pty Ltd, 2004, http://www.joncoedesign.com/trends/exhibit_trends.htm. 73 Rodney Muhumuza, “Tanzania's Maasai Evicted in Favor of Tourism, Group Says,” AP NEWS (Associated Press, May 10, 2018), https://apnews.com/article/656808952a624f66be17fdcb0e29d372. Figure 2.2. Visitors at the Maasai Village at the Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle. 28  02 Air Conditioning  Figure 2.3. Air conditioning. 29  Air conditioning is used to simulate nature at the zoo in several ways. Firstly, HVAC systems are neces-sary for keeping non-endemic species healthy, es-pecially when they originate from climates that differ greatly from the local climate. Secondly, HVAC sys-tems have the added benefit of transporting human visitors to a distant Nature through temperature and humidity control; the Amazon exhibit just feels more “authentic” when it is humid and warm. And finally, air conditioning is used to define the environments of human and nonhuman animals. Distinct HVAC systems are often used to prevent air circulation be-tween exhibit areas and viewing areas.74 This less-ens the olfactory interactions between the viewer and viewed, which is a desired outcome for most vis-itors. But sometimes this separation of the ventilation systems is not enough to prevent nonhuman odours from trespassing into the human areas. Gwen How-ard, a Buffalo Zoo architect, states that “A lot of peo-ple complain about [the gorilla] area because it’s kind of stinky… but that’s what a gorilla smells like.”75 This intolerance for nonhuman smells is evidence of the marginalisation of nonhuman animals in Western culture. In the essay “Why Smell the Zoo?”, Chihhen Chang writes,  The deodorization and the control of smell in the zoo, which determines the presence or absence of animal smells in certain areas, can be associated with the broader context of human’s attempt to control and refine the smell of the urban space, and it also ex-plains the high concentration of animals’ smell in a few areas, like zoo, in the city. In the European con-text, the purge of animal smells from the urban space couples with its sanitization during the nineteenth-century. One of the primary goals of the urban sani-tary reform is to remove the bad smells, misidentified as the cause of epidemics like cholera and typhus and believed to be harmful to morality, among them including the smell relating to animals…The smells of animals were gradually marginalized, if not totally eliminated, in the urban space. In the end, zoo, as a  74 Braverman, Zooland, 72. 75 Braverman, Zooland, 72. 30  part of urban smellscape, become one of the few places people can still smell animals.76 The smells of animals, made concentrated by the limited space of the zoo, are a reminder of the chem-ical messages that would have been used to com-municate with other nonhumans in their habitats, but they are sadly misunderstood as an olfactory affront against human visitors.77  76 Chihhen Chang, “Why Smell the Zoo?,” Reading Zoos in the Age of the Anthropocene, 2019, https://readingzoos.sites.uu.nl/2019/12/04/why-smell-the-zoo/. 77 Chang, “Why Smell the Zoo?” Figure 2.4. HVAC system at the Panda Passage exhibit at the Calgary Zoo. 31  Figure 2.5. Arena. 03 Arena 32  Arenas are the most efficient architectural device for viewing nature. Arena shows at the zoo usually in-volve live animal demonstrations of “natural” behav-iours, along with information about the species and its habitat (fig. 2.6). Even if we assume that the ani-mals involved have been trained humanely, the arena show is still exploitative as sets up a relation-ship of human spectators and passive nonhuman performers. The arena show enforces the idea that nature exists to entertain us and should be molded to do so. The educational value of arena shows must also be questioned as well. From one study, the information retained by visitors was mostly about the entertain-ment value of the show, or how animals can be trained, or how they wanted to pet the animals.78 Af-ter an arena show demonstrated the behaviours of dogs, a monkey, a goat, and a pig, most visitors re-ported that they enjoyed the dog segment the most because “they just liked dogs”, a quarter stated that they thought the monkey would make a good pet, even after being explicitly told that monkeys should not be kept as pets during the demonstration.79 It is therefore unfair to assume that these demonstra-tions have any educational value besides reinforcing the idea that nonhuman animals are only interesting because they amuse us or because we can own them. The arena show is also a relic of the zoo’s most vio-lent predecessor – the ancient Roman venationes (fig. 2.7). Venationes were games staged in arenas that involved the killing of wild animals, either by hu-mans or other animals. Animals were seen purely as disposable vehicles of entertainment; the emperor Trajan had 11,000 animals killed in the Colosseum to celebrate a military triumph.80 Interestingly, vena-tiones occasionally featured trained animals that demonstrated tricks, rather than bloodshed, and  78 Carolyn J. Heinrich and Barbara A. Birney, “Effects of Live Animal Demonstrations on Zoo Visitors' Retention of Information,” Anthrozoös 5, no. 2 (1992): pp. 113-121, https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011557. 79 Heinrich and Birney, “Effects of Live Animal Demonstrations,” 116. 80 Hancocks, A Different Nature, 10.  33  were probably more like modern zoo demonstra-tions than we would like to think.   Figure 2.6. The Crocoseum at the Australia Zoo features both land and water elements for crocodiles to perform “natural” behaviours for spectators. Figure 2.7. The Christian Martyrs Last Prayer. By Jean-Léon Gérôme, c.1863-1883. 34  04 Corporate-Sponsored Exhibit     Figure 2..8. Corporate-sponsored exhibit.  35  The corporate-sponsored exhibit is a modern zoo staple. Visit any zoo in North America and you are bound to come across exhibits sponsored by bever-age companies, retail giants, fossil fuel companies, etc. This sponsorship is used to fund the zoo’s oper-ating costs in exchange for the imple-mentation the brand’s name on signage, exhibits, zoo maps, even the names of the animals. The zoo thus becomes a com-mercial landscape, with corporations paying to have their names displayed along a pure and authentic Nature (fig. 2.9). This sponsorship provides relatively cheap advertisement for corporations that ensures that their brand is seen by the young, affluent fami-lies that can afford to visit zoos. It also allows corpo-rations to be viewed more positively as contributors to conserva-tion, rather than corporations that exploit nonhuman (and hu-man) nature for financial gain. Corporate sponsor-ship transforms zoo animals into “corporate mascots”81 that unknowingly endorse brands by tak-ing on their identity, even their names (fig. 2.10). This sponsorship runs counter to the zoos apparent goal of combatting today’s ecological crises. It instead fuels consumerist attitudes and allows corporations to manipulate captive animals into promoting their brands. According to AZA’s visitor demographics, “79% [of visitors] feel better about companies that support wildlife conservation at zoos and  81 Willis, “Looking at the Zoo,” 672. Figure 2.9. Exhibit sponsored by Rogers at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Figure 2.10. Thyme and Warner the Amur tigers at the Buffalo Zoo, sponsored and named by Time Warner Cable. 36  aquariums,” and “66% are more likely to buy prod-ucts and services from those companies.” 82     82 AZA, “Visitor Demographics." 37  05 Diorama           Figure 2.11. Diorama.  38  Diorama-style exhibits allow visitors to view Nature in a box. Their origins can be traced back to the mu-seum roots of the modern zoo and are similar to the cases that displayed Victorian-era collections in the first natural history museums of Europe. For exam-ple, the Booth Museum in Brighton, England, was founded in 1874 by Edward Thomas Booth. His am-bition was to capture and display one male, one fe-male, and one juvenile of every British bird species83  (fig. 2.12). The modern zoo diorama can be consid-ered a continuation of this Victorian desire to con-quer nature though collection. Diorama-type exhibits at the zoo are often organised according to taxon-omy, like at the reptile house (fig. 2.13), aquarium, or the insect house. This organisation attempts to man-age the complexity of nature through classification. The habitat dioramas at the modern zoo (fig. 2.14) differ little from the museum dioramas popularized in North America by Carl Akeley around the turn of the 20th century (fig. 2.15). They are both boxes with a glass front for viewing, behind which sits plants in the foreground, a painted landscape on the back wall, and a nonhuman animal in between. However, at the zoo, the animals are living and at the museum, they are stuffed. But the aims of their displays are the same – to make the nonhuman animals appear more “alive”. Without a naturalistic simulation of an eco-system with the box, the snake at the zoo displays no more life than the taxidermy snake. The convincing portrayal of Nature within the volume of a display case is thus necessary for the viewer to accept the animal as “wild”. Of Akeley’s displays, Bridgitte Bar-clay writes, “The displays succeeded or failed based on the degree to which they recalled the idea of an American wild, an ecosystem to be both exploited and preserved.”84 The same can be said of the zoo diorama.   83 Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove, “Booth Museum,” Booth Museum of Natural History, 2020, https://brightonmuseums.org.uk/booth/exhibitions-displays/birds/. 84 Bridgitte Barclay, “Museums' Animal Displays Say More About the Humans Who Made Them,” The Atlantic (Atlantic Media Company, October 14, 2015), https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/taxidermy-animal-habitat-dioramas/410401/. Figure 2.12. The reptile house at the Sacramento Zoo, 2011. Figure 2.13. The Booth Museum of British Birds, c. 1896.  39  Figure 2.14. The king cobra diorama-style exhibit at the Toledo Zoo, 2018. Figure 2.15. Carl Akeley’s 1890 muskrat habitat diorama on display at the Milwaukee Public Museum. 40  06 Electric Fence     Figure 2.16. Electric fence.  41  Figure 2.17. Electric fence at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. The electric fence is exploitative for obvious reasons – it functions to restrict the free movement of nonhu-man animals through the infliction of electric shocks. In addition to serving as a secondary physical bar-rier, the electric fence also acts as a psychological barrier that discourages nonhuman animals from at-tempting escape through fear of pain.85 The electric fence is fairly obvious to viewers, espe-cially the heavy-duty, livestock-type fences that sur-round large, strong animals (fig. 2.17). However, zoo designers are aware that the visual presence of elec-tric fences may upset visitors and have cleverly dis-guised them as plants, vines, and roots (fig. 2.18, 2.19, 2.20). These elements are often indistinguisha-ble from other naturalistic exhibit décor, but act to spatially control nonhumans both physically and psy-chologically (fig. 2.21). They also designate which el-ements of Nature are allowed to be interacted with by nonhumans. For example, certain plants or trees are deemed to be vital for the illusion of Nature in an exhibit and so are protected from damage by weaponizing them through “hot” grasses or vines.      85 Woodstream Corporation, “Electric Fencing Advice by Animal,” Zareba® System, 2020, https://www.zarebasystems.com/learning-center/animal-selector. 42  Figure 2.19. HMJ Design’s “electroliana” vine. Figure 2.18. HMJ Design’s hot grass.  43     Figure 2.20. Hot vines in this exhibit are visually indistinguishable from other vines.  Figure 2.21. Spec sheet for Total Habitat hot grass and hot vine products.   44  07 Fake Trees     Figure 2.22. Fake tree.  45  One reason for the abundance of fake trees at the zoo is their durability. Synthetic trees are often used in spaces where real trees just could not survive, like in an indoor exhibit with little natural light, or in ex-hibits with animals that would damage real trees. The use of artificial trees is exploitative in the latter con-dition because it denies animals from expressing the wild behaviours associated with real trees, like nest-making in gorillas or uprooting in elephants. A fake tree is no more than prop in a highly orchestrated performance of Nature. As David Hancocks explains, “A concrete tree is a useless as a light pole…they give an illusion that [zoos are] making progress, but I think from the animal’s point of view, they’re really no better off.”86 Fake trees are highly customisable and are specially crafted to create authentic illusion of Nature. As Gwen Howard, a Buffalo Zoo architect stated, “The fake is very prescribed. You’re going to build me one tree; it’s going to be this diameter, this kind of spe-cies, it’s going to have six primary branches, and…each of those would have a minimum of three to five secondary branches.”87 By striving for authen-ticity through prescribed fakes, the zoo aims to rec-reate Nature, but this time a truer, more perfect Nature, free from the insects, and fungi, and decay that threaten the perfect equilibrium of captivity.   86 Justin Worland, “The Future of Zoos: Challenges Force Zoos to Change in Big Ways,” Time (Time USA, February 16, 2017), https://time.com/4672990/the-future-of-zoos/. 87 Braverman, Zooland, 36. Figure 2.23. Fake pines created by NatureMaker Steel Art Trees in the Francois langur exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens. Figure 2.24. A less convincing fake tree at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. 46  08 Gift Shop     Figure 2.25. Gift shop.  47  The architecture of the gift shop exists in stark con-trast to the naturalistic appearance of the exhibit spaces. The layout of the gift shop is just like any store outside of the zoo, and is a familiar space in which visitors may purchase nonhuman likenesses in the form of toys, clothing, figurines, etc. The stand-ard retail architecture presents an ordered view of Nature, and like the exhibits is often categorized by animal species (fig. 2.26).  Gift shops are strategically placed at the entry and exit of the zoo to ensure that guests do not leave without a final purchase. These acts of consumerism at the gift shop are often promoted as acts of “con-servation” or as “ecological”. The Calgary Zoo web-site encourages people to visit their Panda Market gift shop and “Bring home adorable memories from your visit at the zoo. Celebrate the world's most iconic species with a selection of black-and-white souvenirs – don't forget that each purchase at the market helps support wildlife conservation.” The zoo gift shop must present itself as a site of “ecological consumption” as it must justify its situation in the conflicting spheres of pure authentic Nature and the corrupted commercial world88 (fig. 2.27). As it is lo-cated at the entrance/exit of the zoo, it bridges the “Natural” world constructed within the zoo back to the “unnatural” urban environment, reinforcing the bifurcation of first and second natures.     88 Calgary Zoo, “Calgary Zoo Gift Shop,” The Calgary Zoo, 2020, https://www.calgaryzoo.com/visit/gift-shop. Figure 2.26. A display of stuffed animals at the Brookfield Zoo gift shop, Illinois. Figure 2.27. ‘It’s endangered but you can save it’ t-shirt at the Virginia Zoo gift shop. 48  09 Glass     Figure 2.28. Glass.  49  (Mostly) gone are the Victorian-style iron bar cages that once characterised zoos. At the contemporary zoo, cages have been replaced by glass viewing panels that allow clear views into exhibits. Glass is less reminiscent of prison architecture than bars or fences and could be seen as a more humane mate-rial for enclosures. Visitors also tend to spend more time looking at exhibits with unobstructed views,  like those with glass panels. While humans appreciate large, expansive glass win-dows in their homes, they can be harmful to nonhu-mans. Nonhuman zoo animals have been known to collide with glass panels, especially ungulates or an-imals that are newly introduced into exhibits.89 Bird strikes against glass also frequently occur in zoo ex-hibits and are often fatal.90 The use of clear glass panels prioritises views for humans over the safety of nonhuman animals. Glass panels also act to neatly divide human and nonhuman realms at the zoo. According to David Hancocks, glass-panelled enclosures increase the psychological barrier between the nonhuman and human viewer by dampening animal sounds and smells.91 This creates a “sanitised” view of nature that is more palatable for visitors. Susan Willis’ view on the use of glass panels at the zoo is more violent. Willis argues that the glass panel, especially when used to view into an aquatic envi-ronment, acts to “slice” the animal’s environment like the surgeon’s scalpel. In the essay “Looking at the Zoo”, they write:  89 David M. Powell, “A Framework for Introduction and Socialization Processes for Mammals,” in Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management, ed. Devra G. Kleiman, Katerina V. Thompson, and Charlotte Kirk Baer (Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2013), pp. 49-61, 52. 90 Jamie Dowsett, “Zoo Decks out Windows to Help Protect Birds,” Winnipeg (CTV News, October 1, 2019), https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/zoo-decks-out-windows-to-help-protect-birds-1.4619308. 91 David Hancocks, “The Design and Use of Moats and Barriers,” in Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques, ed. Devra G. Kleiman et al. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 191-203, 194, 198. 50  Vivisection is the trope that infuses the architectural insertion of glass into the zoo environment. An animal in the wild is integral with its surroundings, which it continuously engages through senses, instincts, and corporeal functions. To slice into an animal’s environ-ment, making its world a window for our gaze, enacts the surgery of invasion and domination.92 In this view, the animal’s environment and body are viewed to be one of the same and the act of peering transversely into the nonhuman’s surroundings is a violation of both.  92 Willis, “Looking at the Zoo”, 680. Figure 2.29. A polar bear habitat is architecturally sliced by a glass panel. 51  10 Heat Lamp     Figure 2.30. Heat lamp  52  Ectothermic organisms like reptiles and amphibians rely on their environments to regulate their body temperature. When they are too cold, they must find a heat source to warm themselves, usually by bask-ing in the sun. However, these species are often kept in glass tanks in captivity without access to sunlight, so heat sources must be provided in the form of heat-emitting devices like lamps (fig. 2.31), electric heat pads, or heated rocks. Designers and zoo staff exploit the ectotherm’s reli-ance on these devices and by installing them in the most visible areas of the exhibits.93 This forces an otherwise shy reptile or amphibian to present itself to the gaze of visitors when it needs to warm itself. Heated objects are also used to coax a myriad of other animals into view (fig. 2.32, 2.33). This trick is also used when placing other necessary items in exhibits, such as food, water, nests, or other enrichment items, to force animals into view when eating, drinking, sleeping, or playing.     93 David Grazian, “Where the Wild Things Aren't: Exhibiting Nature in American Zoos,” The Sociological Quarterly 53, no. 4 (January 2012): pp. 546-565, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01249.x, 556. Figure 2.31. A monitor lizard warms itself under a lamp at the Calgary Zoo. 53  Figure 2.32. A tiger warms itself on heated rocks at the Tulsa Zoo.  Figure 2.33. Radiant floor tubing being installed in the Tulsa Zoo tiger exhibit. 54  11 Holding Area     Figure 2.34. Holding area.  55  Holding areas contain the behind-the-scenes, infra-structural architecture that supports the naturalistic displays in the exhibit areas. They are used to house zoo animals out of sight after hours, or during exhibit cleaning, or when in veterinary care. These areas of the zoo are strictly off-exhibit and are almost never viewed by the public. The architecture of holding ar-eas (fig. 2.35) is starkly different from exhibit areas (fig. 2.36). They are extremely utilitarian and efficient spaces that make no attempt to appear “natural”, and are characterised by steel cages, concrete floors, and walls. Gwen Howard, a zoo architect, states, “We design a lot of that support space almost like a battleship or submarine [so] that every inch means something. I don’t want to have a luxurious mechanical room and holding area. I want to spend my five hundred dollars per square foot on the stuff the public is going to see.”94  Captive animals spend much of their lives in these unseen holding areas, some even choose to remain in holding areas rather than in the more “natural” ar-eas.95 This demonstrates that the naturalistic appear-ance of exhibits is not necessarily for the well-being of animals. The naturalistic exhibits are mainly for the purpose of human entertainment. As zoo designer Jon Coe says, “Consider the theater. The public isn’t allowed to see all the backstage activity because it distracts from the effectiveness of the story being told. Nor are the actors as they are being made up and costumed.”96 Zoo architects are keenly aware that the exhibits that they design are stages for ani-mal actors to perform, whereas the holding areas are the backstage where the spectacle is prepared.   94 Braverman, Zooland, 83. 95 Braverman, Zooland, 83. 96 Braverman, Zooland, 82. Figure 2.36. Lion exhibit area at the Oregon Zoo. Figure 2.35. Lion holding area at the Oregon Zoo. 56  12 Hotdog Stand      Figure 2.37. Hotdog stand.   57  Hotdog stands represent the elements at the zoo where “second nature” is consumed. The food con-cessions, cafes, and restaurants of zoos that offer animals on the menu are often directly adjacent to exhibits where animals are revered (fig. 2.38). The presence of these conflicting “natures” within the same physical space is an ironic condition at zoos that demonstrates the distinct bifurcation of first and second natures. A visitor would be probably be ap-palled if zookeepers were to feed a tiger a live deer, yet that same visitor does not think of the cow that was killed to make their hamburger.97  The hotdog stand thus embodies the ways in which we have censored the killing and suffering of animals in our society. The hotdog stand ensures that the processing of nonhuman animals for food remains out of sight and is a reminder of the similar censoring of food preparation that must occur to “humanise” first nature at the zoo.98,99 Food preparation areas for animals must remain hidden (fig. 2.39), and most prey has been humanely killed prior to feeding them to zoo animals in exhibit areas (although no one bats an eye if a lizard eats a live worm in front of them).  Hotdog stands remind us that the zoo is at once a museum, restaurant, and slaughterhouse that must conceal its feeding operations to keep up the illusion of a congenial, palatable Nature for the public. As James Parker aptly notes in an essay about nature television programs, “Nature unobserved, unsenti-mentalized, unpolluted with our delusions, is just a bunch of stuff eating itself.”100  97 Irus Braverman, “Looking At Zoos,” Cultural Studies 25, no. 6 (November 2011): pp. 809-842, https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2011.578250, 819. 98 Grazian, “Exhibiting Nature,” 559-60. 99 Braverman, “Looking at Zoos,” 819. 100 James Parker, “The Beast Within,” The Atlantic (Atlantic Media Company, February 19, 2014), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-beast-within/308486/. Figure 2.38. Interior of the Crocodile Café at the Fort Worth Zoo, Texas. Figure 2.39. Animal food preparation area at the Saint Louis Zoo. 58  13 Immersion Exhibit     Figure 2.40. Immersion exhibit.  59  Immersion exhibits are considered by many zoo pro-fessionals to be best practice for exhibit design. De-veloped in the 1970s at the Seattle Woodland Park Zoo by director and architect David Hancock and landscape architect Jon Coe,101 the immersion ex-hibit aims to recreate the “natural” habitat of a spe-cies as accurately as possible while “immersing” the viewer in that landscape (fig. 2.41-2.43). The desired effect is a reverence and awe for Nature on behalf of the viewer.  Immersion exhibits are essentially the “Animal Planet” programming of zoos.102 They present non-human animals in a pure, “realistic” environment that is constructed through clever landscaping, plant-ings, soundscapes, and other props.103 They rein-force the idea of first nature – the true Nature that only exists in the absence of humans, somewhere else, far away. Zoo visitors are therefore privileged an impossible glimpse into this Nature through these human-made landscapes. According to David Gra-zian, a professor of sociology, zoos feed off of “a growing ‘culture of enchantment’ [that] moves many contemporary audiences to experience the sacred-ness and spirituality they attribute to animal life and the natural world by consuming wildlife documen-taries and other popular cultural entertainments that glorify nature as unadulterated and pristine.”104  The immersion exhibit may appear to be entirely nat-ural and provide all the necessities for the health and well-being of species housed, however, as explained in entry 11. Holding Area, the naturalism is mostly for the benefit of the viewer. Animals get just as frus-trated in these realistic habitats as they do in more artificial ones because the environment is contained, controlled, and static – it is just a more aesthetic ver-sion of captivity. In an interview, Coe stated, “We soon moved away from this idea that if we create these diverse natural habitats we will really solve an-imals’ needs…we saw that we didn’t. Even these re-ally nice diverse exhibits are just a fraction of what  101 Jon Coe Design, “Trends in Zoo Exhibits.”  102 Grazian, “Exhibiting Nature”, 548. 103 Grazian, “Exhibiting Nature”, 548. 104 Grazian, “Exhibiting Nature”, 548. Figure 2.41. Woodland Park Zoo gorilla exhibit. 60  [animals] have in the wild and they are still bored out of their skins most of the time.”105 All zoo animals therefore require additional enrichment activities, such as playing with toys or solving puzzles, to re-main mentally and physically active within captivity. However, the presence of these enrichment devices, which are often familiar, human-made objects like tires or balls, ruin the pureness of the illusion. As Jim Breheny, director of the Bronx Zoo, stated “It drives me crazy…You’re going to spend six-million dollars on this exhibit to make people think that they’re in the Congo basin, and then they’re going to go there and see a gorilla picking sliced carrots out of a stain-less steel food pan?”106 Zoos must constantly grap-ple with these kinds of contradictions that stem from the production of Nature in the human environment.  Interestingly, the predecessor to the immersion ex-hibit is the habitat diorama pioneered by Carl Akeley (fig. 2.44), who through taxidermy practiced a “kill-to-care” ideology. Immersion exhibits stem from this same ideology. They are dioramas animated by the taking of nonhuman lives.  105 Braverman, Zooland, 34. 106 Braverman, Zooland, 35. 61   Figure 2.42. Woodland Park Zoo gorilla exhibit plan. Drawing by Jon Coe. Figure 2.43. Woodland Park Zoo gorilla exhibit section. Drawing by Jon Coe. 62  Figure 2.44. Gorilla diorama in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals at the American Museum of Natural History.                63  14 Invisible Mesh.     Figure 2.45. Invisible mesh.  64  Figure 2.46. Metal mesh in the Birds of Ohio Aviary, Akron Zoo. Invisible mesh is a common feature in the zoo archi-tect’s toolkit (fig. 2.46). As visitors react negatively to the visual presence of fences, walls, or other con-tainment devices, netting or mesh provides a less visually intrusive material for enclosures. Invisible mesh is used to keep nonhuman animals that climb or fly contained in an exhibit, and can often be seen draped over walk-through enclosures like aviaries (fig. 2.47). In addition to its function of keeping zoo animals in, it keeps other unwanted animals out. Zoo animals are vulnerable to threats from the other, more “wild” animals that occupy the urban environ-ment and so must be protected from interactions with the local ecosystems.107 Through this separa-tion, invisible mesh is yet another architectural de-vice that emphasizes the division of first and second natures. The first nature at the zoo is precious and must be cared for in the safety of an enclosed bub-ble, whereas the second nature of urban animals like pigeons, crows, raccoons, or coyotes, must be de-terred from entering the zoo as they do not consti-tute Nature and threaten the pureness of the zoo objects. As a captivity-enforcing device, mesh must be made as invisible as possible to viewers as the exhibits must imply that the nonhuman animals that live there are free. This of course is false, and the invisible netting is just another, albeit more transpar-ent, cage.  107 Irus Braverman, “Looking At Zoos,” Cultural Studies 25, no. 6 (November 2011): pp. 809-842, https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2011.578250, 833. 65  Figure 2.47. Aviary at the Munich Zoo at Hellabrun, Germany, designed by Frei Otto.   66  15 Moat     Figure 2.48. Moat.  67  Moats were popularised by Carl Hagenbeck, famed zoo designer and animal trader, in the 1890s as a bar-less alternative to the cage-like exhibits that were common at the time in Europe. His patented “panorama” exhibits at Tierpark Hagenbeck in Ham-burg, Germany, revolutionised zoo design by pre-senting species-specific exhibits separated by hidden moats. The visual effect was an unbroken landscape in which the animals appeared to coexist-ing in the same space (fig. 2.49). Moats are features that are still used in many exhibit designs (fig. 2.50). Their ability to be passed off as natural features like cliffs or rivers, or to be hidden under viewing plat-forms makes moats excellent containment devices for immersion exhibits. Moats seem like a more respectful alternative to cages or glass panels as they provide the nonhuman animals with a larger berth from the human visitors, protecting them from the actions of poorly behaved guests.108 They also allow humans and nonhumans to smell, hear, and see each other, unobstructed. However, moats reduce the useable area of an en-closure, making the inappropriately small habitats at the zoo even smaller.109 This strict delineation of space created by moats may also be psychologically harmful, as animals are known to wear paths at their edges through stereotypical pacing.  Moats are physically dangerous containment de-vices and have killed zoo animals on several occa-sions. For example, wet moats are effective devices for containing primates that cannot swim. This has led to drownings more than half of the wet-moated chimpanzee exhibits in the US, even after safety nets were installed.110 At some zoos, animals that are dis-played in moated exhibits must first pass a swim test (fig. 2.51). These prove to be popular events with vis-itors, as young animals are tossed in moats to ensure that they will not drown if they accidentally fall in.   108 Grazian, “Exhibiting Nature,” 551. 109 Grazian “Exhibiting Nature,” 551. 110 Ron Kagan and Jake Veasey, “Challenges of Zoo Animal Welfare,” in Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management, ed. Devra G. Kleiman, Katerina V. Thompson, and Charlotte Kirk Baer, 2nd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), pp. 11-21, 16. Figure 2.49. Postcard of the Nordland Panorama at Tierpark Hagenberg, 1910.  68  Figure 2.50. Common moat types at the zoo. Figure 2.51. A tiger cub about to take a swim test at the Smithsonian National Zoo. 69  16 Mock Rock     Figure 2.52. Mock rock.  70  Mock rocks are another architectural device used to simulate Nature through the concealment of human architecture. They are used to disguise doors, hatches, speakers, even entire buildings, as rocky cliffs or outcrops in exhibit spaces (fig. 2.53). The use of mock rocks highlights the need to make artificial elements appear “natural” in order to make the ani-mals appear “wild”. If viewers detect any artifice in the habitats of zoo animals, they are more likely to view the animals as tame, lazy, restricted, and pas-sive.111 The concealment of human architecture is therefore necessary to maintain the illusion that zoos are displaying wild animals, which is necessary to gather the respect and admiration of the public for Nature.    111 Ted Finlay, Lawrence R. James, and Terry L. Maple, “People's Perceptions of Animals,” Environment and Behavior 20, no. 4 (1988): pp. 508-528, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588204008, 522. Figure 2.53. Mock rocks in the orangutan exhibit at the Jackson Zoo “disguise” everything man-made. 71  17 Modernist Penguin Pool     Figure 2.54. Modernist Penguin Pool.  72  Designed by Berthold Lubetkin and Tecton, the iconic Penguin Pool at the London Zoo was built in 1934. The exhibit was the first modernist building in Britain and demonstrated the aesthetic potential of reinforced concrete through thin, curving, intertwin-ing ramps (fig. 2.55, 2.57). The Penguin Pool dis-played penguins continuously for 70 years after it opened. However, now the Penguin Pool sits empty as a relic of the modernist trend in exhibit design and risks demolition.112 Today, Lubetkin’s Penguin Pool is seen by many as inhumane for housing penguins. Zoo officials be-lieved that the concrete ramps were causing pen-guins to contract bumblefoot, an inflammation of the foot pads. This affliction is common among captive penguins and is caused by standing for prolonged periods on wet, hard surfaces113 – surfaces present in virtually every penguin enclosure in the world. For these reasons bumblefoot is known as a “husbandry induced disease”. Even though the ramps could have been resurfaced or redesigned, the decision was made to build a more naturalistic exhibit for the London penguins, like the one at the Woodland Park Zoo (fig. 2.56, 2.57). So how does Lubetkin’s Pen-guin Pool compare to a contemporary, naturalistic exhibit in function? When visually compared to the naturalistic habitat at the Woodland Park Zoo, the exhibits are barely com-parable. The Woodland Park Zoo’s exhibit is a simu-lated rocky coastline that emulates the penguin’s natural habitat; Tecton’s pool is stark white, with ge-ometric curves, stairs, and rooms for penguins. How-ever, when the functional elements of the two exhibits are compared, they are quite similar. They both provide swimming (fig. 2.58), standing (fig. 2.59), and climbing areas (fig. 2.60) for penguins; they have similar nesting spaces (fig 2.61); they both provide ample room for spectators (fig. 2.61). Where the Woodland Park Zoo’s exhibit differs from  112 WA Contents, “Berthold Lubetkin's Poetic Penguin Pool May Be Demolished at London Zoo,” World Architecture Community (World Architecture Community, January 10, 2019), https://worldarchitecture.org/article-links/epvhc/berthold_lubetkins_poetic_penguin_pool_may_be_demolished_at_london_zoo.html. 113 Louise Chiverton, “Bumblefoot in Penguins,” Penguins International, November 17, 2019, https://www.penguinsinternational.org/2019/08/06/bumblefoot-in-penguins/. 73  Tecton’s is the amount of area that is concealed from public view. Tecton’s exhibit is quite explicit in what it presents to visitors. Apart from a storage space and the interior of the nest boxes, there are no areas that are off-exhibit. The Woodland Park Zoo’s exhibit has a very large off-exhibit area that hides the unnat-ural holding areas and mechanical spaces behind fake rocks. The rejection of Tecton’s Penguin Pool is therefore not based on the pretense of care for ani-mals, it is an aesthetic rejection of an explicitly hu-man-made object.   Figure 2.55. The Penguin Pool by Berthold Lubetkin and Tecton. Figure 2.56. The Penguins of the Humboldt Coast exhibit, by Studio Hanson | Roberts. 74   Figure 2.57. Plan of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). 75  Figure 2.58. Swimming areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). 76  Figure 2.59. Standing areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). 77  Figure 2.60. Climbing areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). 78  Figure 2.61. Nesting areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). 79  Figure 2.62. Viewing areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). Grey area indicates the cross-viewing area where humans may see each other. 80  Figure 2.63 Off-exhibit areas of the Penguin Pool (above) and Penguin’s of the Humboldt Coast (below). 81  18 Zoogeography      Figure 2.64. Zoogeography.  82  Zoogeography refers to the way in which animals are classified and organised according to the geo-graphic locations from which their species origi-nates.114 Zoogeography helps to paint the animals, of which the vast majority have been born and raised in North American zoos, as wild members of their spe-cies in locations implied by geographic cues. This is done through spatial layout and mapping, and through vernacular architectural styles. The Toronto Zoo was the first zoo in North America to use zooge-ography as the major organisational principle.115 The maps provided to zoo guests present the zoo-geography of the zoo as colour-coded continental groups like Africa, Eurasia, or Oceania (fig. 2.65, 2.66). By traversing the zoo through this map, visi-tors travel the whole globe within the course of a few hours. Having to walk considerable distances be-tween continental areas also reinforces the notion of geographically distinct regions. By representing the world’s continents, the use of zoogeography gives the impression of a holistic, complete display of Na-ture at the zoo.116 This can be seen as a version of the Victorian naturalist’s desire to demonstrate con-trol over nature through encyclopedia-like collec-tions.  The architecture of these continental regions also supports the idea of geographic otherness. “Exotic” architecture like Chinese gates are used to simulate the Asian continent, thatched-roof huts for the Afri-can continent, and rough wooden post-and-beam shelters simulate the South American jungle. West-ern architectural styles are not usually emphasized as visitors would not recognise these as indicators of foreign, unreachable geographies where true Nature resides. Zoogeography emphasises that Nature does not ex-ist in the familiar geographies that we live in. It is al-ways somewhere else more exotic, more isolated, and more “pure” than our urban environments.  114 Toronto Zoo, “Check Out Our 5,000 Amazing Animals,” Toronto Zoo | Media Kit, accessed December 19, 2020, https://www.torontozoo.com/press/mediakit/5000. 115 Toronto Zoo, “Check Out Our Animals.” 116 Braverman, Zooland, 32. 83    Figure 2.66. Zoogeographic organisation of the Calgary Zoo map. Figure 2.65. Zoogeographic organisation of the Toronto Zoo map.  84  385  PART 3  Defining the New Zoo     Today’s zoo is an optimistic, yet exploitative, construction of what Western society wants to see in Nature – something pristine, ordered, for sale, and safely under our control. To create the Anthropocenic zoo requires no reinvention; zoos are the utopias in which hu-mankind has finally perfected Nature through its domination. The problem with pursuing this utopia is that it will never exist. The agents of Lovelock’s Gaia will react against us,117,118 and nature promises to go on in our absence once we have assured our own ex-tinction.119 If we wish to pursue coexistence in the Anthropocene, a new model for human-nonhuman relationships is necessary. This is why the zoo must be reinvented.  The conventional definition of a zoo is a place where animals are kept in enclosures, especially for public exhibition. However, this definition condemns the zoo to maintain its status-quo of nonhuman exploitation ad infinitum. It becomes more useful instead to define a zoo based on its cultural meaning. By this definition, the zoo becomes “not merely a physical space but also a space of the imagination which both mirrors and shapes the broader cultural understanding of the natural world and our relationship to it.”120 It is a paradigm-altering space that has the capacity to alter both the environment and the mind. This is how we shall define the New Zoo of the Anthropocene.  To transform the exploitative attitudes promoted by current zoos into compossible re-lationships between humans and nonhumans, the New Zoo must reject the exploitative architecture and devices used to capture, view, consume, and simulate nature.  These ob-jects must be absent or otherwise neutralised through transformation. To do so, the New Zoo will follow three key rules that will guide its program and design:  117 James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000). 118 Bruno Latour, Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime, trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2019), 77. 119 Alan Weisman, The World Without Us (London: Picador, 2008). 120 Utrecht University, “Reading Zoos in the Age of the Anthropocene,” Utrecht University, June 19, 2020, https://readingzoos.sites.uu.nl/. 86  1. The New Zoo must allow for equal, democratic encounters between humans and nonhumans. Humans and nonhumans may encounter each other at the New Zoo, but it will not be forced by captivity. Individuals that wish to leave may do so. In-dividuals that wish to come in may do so as well. In this way, it is a voluntary zoo. The architecture of the New Zoo must also be democratic; the New Zoo must not prioritise the needs of one species to the detriment of another.   Encounters will be encouraged at key locations through multi-species-use architecture, but all interactions between entities will remain voluntary and spontaneous. This allows for moments of “epiphany” – the visceral, unexpected encounters with nonhuman life that imbue joy, inter-est, or compassion.121 Cultural historian and birder Mark Cocker describes a personal moment of epiphany, “I realized, perhaps for the first time, by how much life can exceed imagination. A Short-eared owl had entered my life and for those moments, as it swallowed me up with its piercing eyes, I had entered the life of an owl. It was a perfect consummation.”122 In the mo-ment of epiphany, the human and nonhuman finally experience each other, perhaps for the first time, as equals. Through the elimination of captivity and the introduction of a shared language of architecture, humans and non-humans may finally do something that was previously impossible at zoos – actually see each other. It is only through the epiphany can an individual’s anthropocentric worldviews be revised. 2. The New Zoo must inhabit an ecosystem and support its functions. There is a moral imperative for mitigating the damage that humans have had on ecosystems. The New Zoo will therefore take on a conservational role, but not in the traditional sense of wanting to rewind time to a “purer” Nature, sans humanity. The New Zoo embraces the fact that humans have intervened in nature since the origin of their species and instead invents ways for the presence of the Zoo and its visitors to positively impact its res-ident ecologies. The New Zoo practices conservation without Nature. It does not seek to preserve nonhuman populations through coercive means like captive breeding, but rather the healthy functioning of existing ecosystems.  121 James Lorimer, Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2015), 52. 122 Lorimer, Wildlife in the Anthropocene, 52. 87  The New Zoo acknowledges the ecosystems in peril, and through its site and program aims to support nonhumans through habitat enhancement and systems repair. The New Zoo does not practice conservation because it fi-nancially benefits humans through free ecosystem services or as entertain-ment. The New Zoo instead aims to conserve nonhuman life because it has inherent worth rather than monetary value.  3. The New Zoo must present nature and human society as compatible and inseparable. The New Zoo does not promote nature as some distant entity that exists somewhere unreachable by humanity. It presents nature and culture as one of the same. Humans are not above, nor separate from, nature. Charles Dar-win made this clear when he discovered that all of life shares the same origin – a common ancestor. We are therefore all kin in the biosphere as the winners of evolution, or as Bruno Latour calls us, the “Terrestrial”. In Down To Earth, he writes, “we have been stuck with a scarcely attenuated opposi-tion between ‘social’ conflicts and ‘ecological’ conflicts…If there is no choice to be made, it is for the excellent reason that there are not naked humans on one side and nonhuman objects on the other. Ecology is…a call for a change of direction: ‘Toward the Terrestrial!’”123 This opens new possibili-ties for architecture at the New Zoo as it may cater to all of nature without having to conceal its human origin. Unlike the current zoo, the architecture of New Zoo does not try to simulate or make a more perfect nature. It does not have to disguise itself as foreign, or exotic. It may simply exist in what-ever form serves the ecological community best – the survival of the fittest, of the Terrestrial!   The current zoo as a space mirrors both the longings and understandings of nature in human culture. But as a space for imagined nature, the New Zoo can be so much more imaginative.        123 Latour, Down to Earth, 58. 88  PART 4  The City as Zoo     Until this point, the architectural conclusion of this thesis project was intended to be the creation of a zoo within Stanley Park. This zoo was intended to be a demonstration of the control that humans have exerted over the park, its landscape, and its inhabitants over its relatively short history – a demonstration of both its human nature and nonhuman nature through the reincarnation of the Stanley Park Zoo. Stanley park was chosen as a site be-cause, essentially, it is a zoo; it is a constructed place for nature within the city. The intent of creating a zoo in Stanley Park was to reveal that nature is also city and through this create new opportunities for ecological coexistence through architecture. However, it was suggested that while the argument of “nature is city” is valid, that “city is nature” is also valid and perhaps a stronger statement regarding the reinvention of the zoo. Following this conversation, the New Zoo became the City as Zoo (research about Stanley Park from earlier explorations may be found in the appendix).  The city is alive. It is home to not only humans, but a myriad of other species that are revered, feared, or otherwise ignored. They are our nonhuman neighbours, companions, and kin – the nature that is not often considered as such. These species of the city thus provide an opportunity for the architectural reimagination of the urban and wild without having to prescribe to the socially constructed aesthetics of Nature. The City as Zoo re-veals the hidden relationships that already exist between human and nonhuman nature within the urban environment, and seeks to make them not only visible, but accepted. By creating “zoos” in the city through multispecies architecture, spaces for coexistence, cu-riosity, and culture are created for humans and nonhumans alike, challenging what it means to be human or nature in the Anthropocene. The City as Zoo places the human and nonhuman on equal terms, and celebrates the everyday interactions, phenomena, and beings that exist in the urban realm. Through architecture, the City as Zoo synthesizes the urban and the wild, culture and nature, human and nonhuman, creating spaces where city dwellers can realise their place within a dynamic ecosystem. 89  Figure 4.1. The City as Zoo interventions.   Three sites within Vancouver – Bill Curtis Square in Yaletown, the Broadway-Cambie plaza, and Helena Guthrie Plaza – were selected for interventions, each catering to a specific urban species in addition to our own. Programmatically, each intervention reflects its local urban environment, creating shared spaces for eating, rest, and contemplation, respectively, for ur-ban dwellers. Rat Hearth Intertidal Traffic Zone Museum of Urban Artifacts 90   Figure 4.4. Helena Guthrie Plaza, Vancouver. Figure 4.3. Broadway-Cambie plaza, Vancouver. Figure 4.2. Bill Curtis Square in Yaletown, Vancouver. 91  Rat Hearth   Figure 4.5. Rat Hearth, perspective. 92  The Rat Hearth is located at a hotspot of restaurants in the Yaletown neighbourhood of downtown Van-couver – an area where people go to eat, and there-fore where rats go to eat as well. While rats have coexisted with humans for thousands of years and have expanded across the globe as our shadows, current rat control strategies are to eliminate them. These elimination strategies inevitably fail to signifi-cantly address the rat population as total extermina-tion is near impossible, and any rats left behind quickly repopulate the environment. Furthermore, rats disturbed by pest control activities are known to flee their home territories, increasing the risk of spreading pathogens between what were stable, healthy rat populations.124 Rat control strategies such as trapping and poisoning may also harm other species, such as owls that ingest poisoned rats. New research has indicated that perhaps the best strat-egy to address the rat presence in urban centres is to let them be, and instead lessen the psychological harm that they cause to humans.125 The Rat Hearth creates a space where rats are free to exist and ben-efit from human scraps as they currently do in the city – but to reframe their presence as one of a pest to a benign presence. Through a steady supply of fresh food, rat populations may remain fixed in spe-cific locations, preventing rats from seeking food and shelter in other buildings where they may be less welcome.  A serpentine brick wall creates comfortable spaces for humans to dine, while the cavity space inside the wall allows rats to move freely, undisturbed. The tall hearth-like garbage receptacles allow rats unlimited access to food scraps in a well-ventilated volume that reduces odours. Large built-up mounds of earth provide the rats with ample substrate to create bur-rows and provide diners with garden views.  124 Kaylee A. Byers et al., “Rats About Town: A Systematic Review of Rat Movement in Urban Ecosystems,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00013. 125 Craig Stephen, “Evolving Urban Wildlife Health Surveillance to Intelligence for Pest Mitigation and Monitoring,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00127. Figure 4.6. Hotspot map of restaurants in downtown Vancouver. site 93   94  Figure 4.7. Rat Hearth plan, 1:100. 95  96  Figure 4.8. Rat Hearth section, 1:100. 97  98  Figure 4.9. Rat Hearth section. 1:20. 99  Intertidal Traffic Zone  Figure 4.10. Intertidal Traffic Zone, perspective. 100  The Intertidal Traffic Zone is located near the bus-tling intersection of Broadway and Cambie Street in Vancouver, one of the busiest intersections in the city. The Intertidal Traffic Zone aims to reconnect the twice daily tides of people – the morning and evening rush hours – to the fundamental rhythms of nature, the tides. A plaza is transformed into an intertidal zone that floods twice daily in accordance with the flows of people and traffic that surround it. The tides of the city become natural once more with the reali-sation that the rhythms of our daily lives are innately connected to the living world. The Intertidal Traffic zone takes the form of a ramped platform that rises above a tidal pool below. An abun-dance of steel columns jut out from the surface of the water at all angles, supporting the platform above. These columns and the bush-hammered concrete surfaces that form the pool and its walls provide plenty of surface area for barnacles to affix themselves to. The ramp and platform above invite commuters to slip into the intertidal zone and to be-come still for a moment. The structure comes alive as life adheres to it, with sessile marine organisms below and the human commuters above. In this space, one may find a moment of peace from the crashing waves – a moment of stillness within the flow.    101  102  Figure 4.11. Intertidal Traffic Zone plan, lower level at low tide, 1:100 103  104  Figure 4.12. Intertidal Traffic Zone plan, lower level at high tide, 1:100  105  106  Figure 4.13. Intertidal Traffic Zone plan, upper level at high tide, 1:100  107  108  Figure 4.14. Intertidal Traffic Zone section, low tide, 1:100  109  110  Figure 4.15. Intertidal Traffic Zone section, high tide, 1:100   111  112  Figure 4.16. Intertidal Traffic Zone section, low tide, 1:20   113  Museum of Urban Artifacts    Figure 4.17. Museum of Urban Artifacts, perspective. 114  The Museum of Urban Artifacts, located at Helena Guthrie Plaza, is yet another museum in the city of Vancouver. This museum displays a curated selec-tion of objects gathered from the city, the detritus and objects discarded, lost, or cast away by the city’s inhabitants. The Museum of Urban Artifacts repre-sents the city and the life within in through the arti-facts and evidence of the lives that traverse it. However, this museum is unique in that it is not cu-rated by humans, but rather crows. Crows and other corvids are highly intelligent, curi-ous birds, that are known to pick up, manipulate, and collect items. They are also able to solve complex puzzles. These characteristics make the crow the perfect curator of the Museum of Urban Artifacts which encourages the crow to collect the objects of the city in exchange for food. The museum takes the form of an elevated room ac-cessed by stairs from the plaza below. The stairs are contained within a cage that allows birds to enter, perch, and leave at will, while the humans are con-tained, reversing the traditional zoo format. The walls of the room above contain devices that release pea-nuts to crows that deposit objects within the display boxes. The crows are not visible as they curate the collection; instead, only crows that wish to be seen may enter the museum. Visibility of the animals is not enforced nor coerced through the feeding devices. The architecture becomes the interface through which we interact with the crows. The location of this museum next to the Vancouver City Hall forces human visitors to reflect upon the na-ture of the city and its citizens. What if the citizens of the city were more than human? What makes us hu-man? Could other species have humanity? 115  116  Figure 4.18. Museum of Urban Artifacts plan, 1:100 117  118  Figure 4.19. Museum of Urban Artifacts section, 1:100 119  120   Figure 4.20. Crow curation process. 121  APPENDIX  Welcome to Stanley (Zoological) Park!     Stanley Park is 4 km2 urban park located on a peninsula mostly surrounded by English Bay and the Burrard Inlet (fig. 4.1). Stanley Park borders Vancouver’s densely inhabited West End neighbourhood on its south and connects to North Vancouver via the Lion’s Gate Bridge at its northern tip. Stanley Park will be explored as a case study for the site of a New Zoo. Stanley Park was chosen because it contains both the Relic and Oasis arche-types for conservation in the Anthropocene, and because it has always been an important site for redefining the human-nonhuman relationships within Vancouver’s urban envi-ronment.126 While Stanley Park is celebrated as a “natural” environment, the park is the human-constructed product of over a century of manipulation.  By the 1880s, rapid urbanisation of the Burrard uplands had left Stanley Park as a small, isolated habitat for remaining animals in the city. These animals were met with great hostility if they transgressed the new urban-wilderness divide, and any animals that wandered into the city risked being shot.127 Stanley Park was the Nature “over there” that was wild and untamed. Its designation as a park in 1887 first required several “improve-ments” of this Nature by the Park Board before it could be fit to be used as a recreational space for the new settlers.128 The first was to eliminate all human settlements from the park. Human settlements that subsisted through hunting, fishing, and raising livestock were swiftly eliminated from the area after the Park Board took control of the park in 1888. The largest of which was X̱wáýx ̱way, located near what is now the Lumberman’s Arch, which was home to the Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), and səlil-wətaɬ (Tseil-Waututh) peoples, as well as European and Asian settlers. These settlements did not conform with the Nature that had been constructed through the creation of the park as their presence “polluted” pristine Nature through its occupation and use. Nature  126 Sean Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife: Negotiating the Animal Landscape of Vancouver's Stanley Park, 1888-1996,” Environment and History 18, no. 4 (January 2012): pp. 497-527, https://doi.org/10.3197/096734012x13466893037062. 127 Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife”, 502. 128 Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife”, 501. 122  in the park was to be enjoyed through recreation only.129 Secondly, the Nature of the park had to be aesthetically improved. This included the species composition of the park itself. As Sean Kheraj writes,  Beginning in the early years of the 1900s, the board selectively stocked Stanley Park with animals of a gentle demeanour and pleasant appearance that would entertain park visitors and produce a sanitised tamed wilderness effect. The swans and squirrels in Stanley Park best illustrate the Park Board's deliberate efforts to produce a rationalised modern urban wildlife experience for park-goers through the construction of new habitat the introduction of novel animal species to the peninsula.130 These introduced, more “civilised” species, created the impression of a peaceful, and pal-atable nature. However, this illusion was broken when these animals were predated on by the existing, wilder, predators in the park. This was seen as unacceptable, feral behaviour, and was discouraged through predator-control policies that sought to kill “excess” pred-ators.131 Nonhuman autonomy was seen as threatening to Nature and had to be removed from the park. While free-roaming wild animals were not tolerated in Stanley Park, there was still a desire from the public to see “wild” animals. The creation of the Stanley Park Zoo fulfilled this desire.   Created in the 1890s, the old Stanley Park Zoo once housed monkeys, polar bears, pen-guins, and other animals. The zoo proved a popular attraction, but also caused unease due to degrading facilities.132 The zoo exhibits were upgraded in the 1950s, around the time of the opening of the Vancouver Aquarium. Millions of visitors continued to visit the zoo un-til the 1990s, when again the condition of its facilities was called into question. A plan for its redevelopment into a naturalistic modernized zoo that would focus on endangered species, education, and conservation was created in 1989.133 The fate of the zoo was left up to a vote and in 1993, the residents of Vancouver voted to shut down the Stanley Park Zoo through a referendum.    More modern conflicting attitudes towards nature at Stanley Park are illustrated by the comments from the minutes of the 1988 public information meeting regarding the zoo’s redevelopment plan. Some members of the public were for the zoo redevelopment plan because they believed that a zoo was necessary in the park for creating the proper respect for wildlife. According to the minutes, one person stated that “Numerous animals  129 Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife”, 505. 130 Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife”, 507. 131 Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife”, 509. 132 Kheraj, “Demonstration Wildlife”, 509. 133 Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, “Stanley Park Zoological Gardens Redevelopment Plan” (Vancouver, BC: Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 1989), pp. 1-39. 123  and birds have been seen in his backyard…Unfortunately not everyone has this habitat and he feels is a must that there be on-hands education as proposed by the zoo redevel-opment plan. Is definitely a must for the appreciation of wildlife.”134 Others opposed the plan because they believed that the park was too precious or natural to be modified. From the minutes, “Stanley Park is a shrine and must not be dominated by [an] amusement centre. He urged that the zoo be closed.”135 Stanley Park is seen as both not wild enough and too wild. It embodies both first and second natures, and as such will be the focus for the New Zoo.  As a site of first and second natures, Stanley Park contains both the Relic and Oasis archetypes for conservation in the Anthropocene. The Relics are the highly manicured urbanised areas, like lawns, gardens, and sports fields that are perceived by many as too “unnatural” to support ecosystems (fig. 4.3). These Relics benefit from the addition of more “wild” elements that encourage nonhuman use. The Oases are the “natural” ecosys-tems that are under threat because of their use as recreational sites (fig. 4.4 – 4.6). These sites are those that are perceived as too “wild” to be explicitly modified, but that are un-knowingly degraded by heavy visitor use. Current stressors to Stanley Park’s Oases in-clude the loss and fragmentation of natural areas, degradation of water quality, the introduction and proliferation of non-native species, park operations, vehicular and pe-destrian traffic, and climate change.136 Both archetypes will present opportunities for new types of architectural invention at the New Zoo.  134 Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, “Meeting Minutes” (Vancouver, 1988), 9. 135 Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, “Meeting Minutes,” 7. 136 Stanley Park Ecology Society, “State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stanley Park” (Vancouver, British Columbia: Stanley Park Ecology Society, 2020), pp. 1-57, 6. 124   125  Figure 4.21. Map of Stanley Park. 126   127  Figure 4. 22. Map of traffic routes in Stanley park 128  129  Figure 4.23. Map of urbanised areas in Stanley Park. 130   131  Figure 4.24. Broad habitat types in Stanley Park. 132  133  Figure 4.25. Habitat types at risk according to the BC CDC. 134  135  Figure 4.26. Sensitive ecologies as identified by the Stanley Park Ecology Society. 136  137  Figure 4.27. Old zoo building sites vs. New Zoo potential intervention sites. 138  v139  Bibliography   Acampora, Ralph. “Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices.” Soci-ety & Animals 13, no. 1 (2005): 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530053966643.  Avec le président Chirac. “Speech by Mr. Jacques CHIRAC, President of the French Republic, to the Plenary Session of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. - Johannes-burg.” Website of the Office of the French President, September 1, 2002. http://www.jacqueschirac-asso.fr/archives-elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/an-glais/speeches_and_documents/2002-2001/fi005004.html.  AZA. “AZA Zoos and Aquariums Contribute $24 Billion to U.S. Economy.” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2019. https://www.aza.org/aza-news-releases/posts/aza-zoos-and-aquariums-contribute-24-billion-to-us-economy-?locale=en.  AZA. “AZA-Accredited Zoos and Aquariums Are Saving Endangered Animals From Extinc-tion.” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2019. https://www.aza.org/aza-news-re-leases/posts/aza-accredited-zoos-and-aquariums-are-saving--endangered-animals-from-extinction-?locale=en.  AZA. “Species Survival Plan Programs.” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020. https://www.aza.org/species-survival-plan-programs?locale=en.  AZA. “Visitor Demographics.” Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020. https://www.aza.org/partnerships-visitor-demographics?locale=en.  AZA. Rep. SAFE 2019 Annual Report. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2019.  AZA. Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Program Handbook. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020.  Banks, Peter B., and Chris R. Dickman. “Alien Predation and the Effects of Multiple Levels of Prey Naiveté.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22, no. 5 (2007): 229–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.02.006.  Barclay, Bridgitte. “Museums' Animal Displays Say More About the Humans Who Made Them.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, October 14, 2015. https://www.theatlan-tic.com/science/archive/2015/10/taxidermy-animal-habitat-dioramas/410401/.  Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O. U. Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B. Quental, Charles Marshall, et al. “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction 140  Already Arrived?” Nature 471, no. 7336 (2011): 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/na-ture09678.  Bayma, Todd. “Rational Myth Making and Environment Shaping: The Transformation of the Zoo.” The Sociological Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2012): 116–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01228.x.  Beck, Benjamin. Essay. In Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation, edited by Bryan G. Norton, Michael Hutchings, Elizabeth F. Stevens, Terry L. Maple, and John Wuichet, 155–63. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.  Berger, John. Why Look at Animals? London, England: Penguin, 2009.  Blades, David W. “The Simulacra of Science Education.” Essay. In (Post) Modern Science (Edu-cation): Propositions and Alternative Paths, edited by John A. Weaver, Peter Michael Ap-pelbaum, and Marla Morris, 57–94. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2001.  Braverman, Irus. “Conservation without Nature: the Trouble with in Situ versus Ex Situ Conser-vation.” Geoforum 51 (2014): 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.018.  Braverman, Irus. “Looking At Zoos.” Cultural Studies 25, no. 6 (2011): 809–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2011.578250.  Braverman, Irus. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, an imprint of Stanford Univ. Press, 2013.  Byers, Kaylee A., Michael J. Lee, David M. Patrick, and Chelsea G. Himsworth. “Rats About Town: A Systematic Review of Rat Movement in Urban Ecosystems.” Frontiers in Ecol-ogy and Evolution 7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00013.  Calgary Zoo. “Calgary Zoo Gift Shop.” The Calgary Zoo, 2020. https://www.calga-ryzoo.com/visit/gift-shop.  CAZA. “Our Work.” Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, June 28, 2017. https://caza.ca/.  Chang, Chihhen. “Why Smell the Zoo?” Reading Zoos in the Age of the Anthropocene, 2019. https://readingzoos.sites.uu.nl/2019/12/04/why-smell-the-zoo/.  Chase, Jordyn, Shelly Grow, and Amy Rutherford. Rep. 2019 Annual Report on Conservation and Science Highlights. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2019.  Che-Castaldo, Judy P., Shelly A. Grow, and Lisa J. Faust. “Evaluating the Contribution of North American Zoos and Aquariums to Endangered Species Recovery.” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27806-2.  141  Chiverton, Louise. “Bumblefoot in Penguins.” Penguins International, November 17, 2019. https://www.penguinsinternational.org/2019/08/06/bumblefoot-in-penguins/.  City of Edmonton. “Species Survival Plan.” Edmonton Valley Zoo, 2020. https://www.edmon-ton.ca/attractions_events/edmonton_valley_zoo/species-survival-plan.aspx.  Clubb, Ros, and Georgia Mason. “Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging Carnivores.” Nature 425, no. 6957 (2003): 473–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/425473a.  Conway, William G. “Buying Time for Wild Animals With Zoos.” Zoo Biology, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20352.  Dowsett, Jamie. “Zoo Decks out Windows to Help Protect Birds.” Winnipeg. CTV News, Octo-ber 1, 2019. https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/zoo-decks-out-windows-to-help-protect-birds-1.4619308.  Finlay, Ted, Lawrence R. James, and Terry L. Maple. “People's Perceptions of Animals.” Envi-ronment and Behavior 20, no. 4 (1988): 508–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588204008.  Grazian, David. “Where the Wild Things Aren't: Exhibiting Nature in American Zoos.” The So-ciological Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2012): 546–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01249.x.  Hancocks, David. “The Design and Use of Moats and Barriers.” Essay. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques, edited by Devra G. Kleiman, Mary E. Allen, Kate-rina V. Thompson, and Susan Lumpkin, 191–203. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.  Hancocks, David. A Different Nature: the Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Fu-ture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002.  Hanson, Elizabeth. Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.  Heinrich, Carolyn J., and Barbara A. Birney. “Effects of Live Animal Demonstrations on Zoo Visitors' Retention of Information.” Anthrozoös 5, no. 2 (1992): 113–21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011557.  IUCN. “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Summary Statistics.” IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2, 2020. https://www.iucnredlist.org/statistics.  Jamieson, Dale. “Against Zoos.” Essay. In In Defense of Animals: the Second Wave, edited by Peter Singer, 132–43. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006.  142  Jensen, Eric. “Evaluating Children's Conservation Biology Learning at the Zoo.” Conservation Biology 28, no. 4 (2014): 1004–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12263.  Jon Coe Design. “Trends in Zoo Exhibits.” Jon Coe Design Pty Ltd, 2004. http://www.joncoede-sign.com/trends/exhibit_trends.htm.  Kagan, Ron, and Jake Veasey. “Challenges of Zoo Animal Welfare.” Essay. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management, edited by Devra G. Kleiman, Katerina V. Thompson, and Charlotte Kirk Baer, 2nd ed., 11–21. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.  Kaufman, Leslie. “To Save Some Species, Zoos Must Let Others Die.” The New York Times. The New York Times, May 28, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/science/zoos-bitter-choice-to-save-some-species-letting-others-die.html.  Keulartz, Jozef. “Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28, no. 2 (2015): 335–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z.  Kheraj, Sean. “Demonstration Wildlife: Negotiating the Animal Landscape of Vancouver's Stan-ley Park, 1888-1996.” Environment and History 18, no. 4 (2012): 497–527. https://doi.org/10.3197/096734012x13466893037062.  Kisling, Vernon N. “Historic and Cultural Foundations of Zoo Conservation: A Narrative Time-line.” Essay. In The Ark and beyond: the Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation, ed-ited by Ben A. Minteer, Jane Maienschein, James P. Collins, and George Bernard Rabb, 41–50. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2018.  Latour, Bruno. Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2019.  Leakey, Richard E., and Roger Lewin. The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995.  Legagneux, Pierre, Nicolas Casajus, Kevin Cazelles, Clément Chevallier, Marion Chevrinais, Lorelei Guéry, Claire Jacquet, et al. “Our House Is Burning: Discrepancy in Climate Change vs. Biodiversity Coverage in the Media as Compared to Scientific Literature.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00175.  Lorimer, Jamie. Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.  Lovelock, James. The Ages of Gaia: a Biography of Our Living Earth. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 2000.  143  Mäekivi, Nelly. “Freedom in Captivity: Managing Zoo Animals According to the ‘Five Free-doms.’” Biosemiotics 11, no. 1 (2018): 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9311-5.  Mason, Georgia J. “Stereotypies: a Critical Review.” Animal Behaviour 41, no. 6 (1991): 1015–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80640-2.  Mccombs, Maxwell. “Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Relations Review 3, no. 4 (1977): 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0363-8111(77)80008-8.  Meuser, Natascha. Zoo Buildings: Construction and Design Manual. Berlin, Germany: DOM Publishers., 2019.  Mora, Camilo, Derek P. Tittensor, Sina Adl, Alastair G. B. Simpson, and Boris Worm. “How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?” PLoS Biology 9, no. 8 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127.  Muhumuza, Rodney. “Tanzania's Maasai Evicted in Favor of Tourism, Group Says.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, May 10, 2018. https://apnews.com/arti-cle/656808952a624f66be17fdcb0e29d372.  Palumbi, S. R. “Humans as the World's Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science 293, no. 5536 (2001): 1786–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5536.1786.  Parker, James. “The Beast Within.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, February 19, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-beast-within/308486/.  Patrick, Patricia G., and Sue Dale Tunnicliffe. “Rationale for the Existence of Zoos.” Zoo Talk, 2012, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4863-7_3.  Pievani, T. “Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Event ☆.” Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene, 2018, 259–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809665-9.09216-8.  Powell, David M. “A Framework for Introduction and Socialization Processes for Mammals.” Essay. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management, edited by Devra G. Kleiman, Katerina V. Thompson, and Charlotte Kirk Baer, 49–61. Chi-cago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2013.  Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove. “Booth Museum.” Booth Museum of Natural History, 2020. https://brightonmuseums.org.uk/booth/exhibitions-displays/birds/.  Smith, Neil. Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. 3rd ed. Ath-ens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2008.  144  Soulé, Michael, Michael Gilpin, William Conway, and Tom Foose. “The Millenium Ark: How Long a Voyage, How Many Staterooms, How Many Passengers?” Zoo Biology 5, no. 2 (1986): 101–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430050205.  Stanley Park Ecology Society. Rep. Best Management Practices for Species of Significance in Stanley Park. Vancouver, BC: Stanley Park Ecology Society, 2012.  Stanley Park Ecology Society. Rep. Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Stanley Park. Stanley Park Ecology Society, 2010.  Stanley Park Ecology Society. Rep. State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stan-ley Park. Vancouver, British Columbia: Stanley Park Ecology Society, 2020.  Stephen, Craig. “Evolving Urban Wildlife Health Surveillance to Intelligence for Pest Mitigation and Monitoring.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00127.  Taronga Conservation Society Australia. “10 Endangered Species Saved from Extinction by Zoos.” Taronga Conservation Society Australia, 2020. https://taronga.org.au/news/2017-05-22/10-endangered-species-saved-extinction-zoos.  Toronto Zoo. “Check Out Our 5,000 Amazing Animals.” Toronto Zoo | Media Kit. Accessed December 19, 2020. https://www.torontozoo.com/press/mediakit/5000.  Trisos, Christopher H., Cory Merow, and Alex L. Pigot. “The Projected Timing of Abrupt Eco-logical Disruption from Climate Change.” Nature 580, no. 7804 (2020): 496–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9.  UNESCO. “Edward O. Wilson : ‘The Loss of Biodiversity Is a Tragedy.’” United Nations Edu-cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2010. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/edward_o_wilson_the_loss_of_biodiversity_is_a_tragedy/.  Utrecht University. “Reading Zoos in the Age of the Anthropocene.” Utrecht University, June 19, 2020. https://readingzoos.sites.uu.nl/.  Valdes, Manuel. “A Misguided Use of Zoo Guides?” The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company, August 8, 2007. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a-misguided-use-of-zoo-guides/.  Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. “Minutes of the Public Information Meeting Re: Stanley Park Zoological Gardens Redevelopment.” Vancouver: Sheraton Plaza 500, Octo-ber 19, 1988.  145  Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation. Rep. Stanley Park Zoological Gardens Redevelop-ment Plan. Vancouver, BC: Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, 1989.  WA Contents. “Berthold Lubetkin's Poetic Penguin Pool May Be Demolished at London Zoo.” World Architecture Community. World Architecture Community, January 10, 2019. https://worldarchitecture.org/article-links/epvhc/berthold_lubetkins_poetic_pen-guin_pool_may_be_demolished_at_london_zoo.html.  WAZA. “World Association of Zoos and Aquariums Home Page.” World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2020. https://www.waza.org/.  Weisman, Alan. The World Without Us. London: Picador, 2008.  Willis, Susan. “Looking at the Zoo.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 98, no. 4 (1999): 669–87.  Wilson, Edward Osborne. The Future of Life. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.  Woodstream Corporation. “Electric Fencing Advice by Animal.” Zareba® System, 2020. https://www.zarebasystems.com/learning-center/animal-selector.  Worland, Justin. “The Future of Zoos: Challenges Force Zoos to Change in Big Ways.” Time. Time USA, February 16, 2017. https://time.com/4672990/the-future-of-zoos/.   

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0397492/manifest

Comment

Related Items