Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The National Zoo
The National Zoo is a wonderful place. Right off Rock Creek Parkway in Washington D.C., it's another brilliant Frederick Law Olmstead landscape design, New York's Central Park arguably being the best known. It was one of the first places to house and serve as a refuge for animals in habitats instead of the constraining cages that were so in vogue for a while. The 163-acres are well laid out with some slopes but no outright hills, lots of shade areas as well as sunny ones. There are places to stop and relax, green lawns to sit on (perfect for picnics), water fountains, and even some hand pumps for quick handwashing in cool water. The Kids Farm looks just like a real, if small, farm. The Bird House is wonderful, with startling glimpses of bright colors darting all over the place. The famous roly-poly Pandas are always charming and delightful. And on your desktop computer you can even watch big and small tigers, mole-rats, octupus, gorillas, giraffes, flamingos, ferrets, cheetahs, birds, elephants, and even fish on the Zoo's 17 live web cams! I find the pandas, cheetah cubs and orangutans especially mesmerizing.
And yet, alas, I have a complaint. An 1889 act of Congress established the NZ for the purpose of “the advancement of science and the instruction and recreation of the people.” But babies - some of the "people" who are supposed to be able to enjoy the Zoo - cannot see a single solitary thing almost anywhere. Children famously adore animals and zoos, after all. Hedges and fences adorn the fronts of most of the habitats, perfectly in keeping with the habitats but also exactly as high as the eyes of anyone under four. Some fences are slatted, which seems like a solution, but the middle slat is precisely where a baby's eyes are and wide enough that it's hard to peek under or over. It's unrealistic to carry all babies and little children through the whole zoo, even if they and their adults would be willing. Yes, it would have required thinking about it to prevent this problem, but isn't it amazing that no one did. (I reject the idea that they thought of it but didn't do it.) Hedges don't have to be thick greenery all the way across and fences don't have to be traditional heights. Could "stroller" paths be set up in front of many exhibits so babies had a sightline without preventing taller children and adults from seeing? The National Zoo takes great pride in their resident four-legged animal cubs; they need to devote more thoughtful attention to their visiting two-legged human cubs.
And yet, alas, I have a complaint. An 1889 act of Congress established the NZ for the purpose of “the advancement of science and the instruction and recreation of the people.” But babies - some of the "people" who are supposed to be able to enjoy the Zoo - cannot see a single solitary thing almost anywhere. Children famously adore animals and zoos, after all. Hedges and fences adorn the fronts of most of the habitats, perfectly in keeping with the habitats but also exactly as high as the eyes of anyone under four. Some fences are slatted, which seems like a solution, but the middle slat is precisely where a baby's eyes are and wide enough that it's hard to peek under or over. It's unrealistic to carry all babies and little children through the whole zoo, even if they and their adults would be willing. Yes, it would have required thinking about it to prevent this problem, but isn't it amazing that no one did. (I reject the idea that they thought of it but didn't do it.) Hedges don't have to be thick greenery all the way across and fences don't have to be traditional heights. Could "stroller" paths be set up in front of many exhibits so babies had a sightline without preventing taller children and adults from seeing? The National Zoo takes great pride in their resident four-legged animal cubs; they need to devote more thoughtful attention to their visiting two-legged human cubs.
Labels: children, places, reflections
Post a Comment