Back to web version
KC Zoo requires much effort for little reward
That’s a frequent complaint about the Kansas City Zoo, and a valid one.
Last Wednesday wasn’t the best day for a visit. The late-afternoon sun cast long shadows, and a chilly wind tugged dry leaves from the trees. The place was almost deserted.
But it wasn’t hard to diagnose the zoo’s problem. Like Kansas City itself, the park is fragmented and spread out. It’s no surprise attendance has fallen by a third since 2001.
The elements that make an attraction like a zoo enjoyable aren’t much different from those that make a street interesting to walk. An entertaining walk offers a feast for the eyes, presenting rich detail close at hand — rather than on the far side of a wide lawn or an empty space.
On a pedestrian-friendly street, the scene changes every few paces. On a street adjoined by a parking lot or a building designed in the monumental style — set far from the sidewalk — the scenery changes too infrequently to relieve boredom.
I began my zoo visit at the World Gate, the spot where visitors choose which part of the park to visit first. The very first message received by the eyes was discouraging.
The signs were clear enough: the African exhibits were a seven-minute walk. Australia and the other choices were also several minutes away — which was the problem: None of these destinations was readily visible, although a cluster of nearby buildings turned out to be the Kidzone, and it looked considerably closer than the five minutes estimated by the wayfinding sign.
I decided to head for Africa, and followed the spacious walkway to where another sign pointed the route straight ahead. I followed it to another sign, which now pointed to the left, where the path curved around a cluster of thatched huts. The destination was still not in sight, and the scene offered no clue as to the remaining distance.
After another blind curve, a large sign announced: “Welcome to Kenya.”
But the sign was premature. It was perched atop the entrance to a footbridge that stretched for more than 100 yards — the most boring sort of walk imaginable — which led to: a parking lot, which led to: an African town, which led to: another blind curve, which led, finally, to a picture-window view of a magnificently aloof cheetah lounging on a knoll under a log, about 20 feet away.
A nice payoff, but it came only after a tedious hike with little to delight the eye other than a concrete pathway adjoined by turf, trees, clumps of ornamental grass and benches.
After the cheetahs, I continued along the path, where the pattern repeated: another blind curve, no clue as to the distance to the next exhibit, and another alcove for viewing warthogs.
By the time I arrived, the warthogs had been shooed indoors because of the falling temperature. With the cold clotting the ink in my pen, I decided to turn back.
According to the zoo map, what I had just hiked was, incredibly, the “shortcut” to Africa. In warmer weather, when a tram would cover much of the distance for those who choose to ride, the trek would be less monotonous. But trams, or zoo trains, are no substitute for competent design. To travel by tram, you sacrifice spontaneity; you must conform to a schedule.
Fortunately, Zoo Director Randy Wisthoff seems well aware of these problems.
Those who complain that the zoo is too darned big, he says, are usually referring to the African exhibits. The problem: Africa is on the far side of the Blue River, and visiting all the exhibits requires a one-mile hike on a circular path with no shortcut back for those who might want to quit early.
The ideal, he agreed, is a layout in which the next attraction is visible from the preceding one, an approach that would greatly enliven the walk.
“That would be helpful,” Wisthoff said. “But that isn’t the way our zoo is laid out. Right now, I don’t have the money to fill in the holes.”
Friends of the Zoo, which operates the facility, is working on a $50 million investment program. The plans include a penguin exhibit near the entrance — a good idea that would help fill in a fairly glaring “hole.”
Most of the investment in new exhibits, says Wisthoff, would go to the older part of the zoo, also a good choice.
“That’s what I have to do — bring a lot of energy right in the front door,” he said. “A lot of people may not go to Africa.”
Well, no, and who could blame them?