A Q U A T I C E X H I B I T S 125

Int. Zoo Yb. (1987) 2 6 125-132 0 The Zoological Society of London

Renovation of the Penguinarium at the Detroit Zoo STEVE GRAHAM Director, Detroit Zoological Parks Department, POB 39, Royal Oak, Michigan 480484039, USA

The Detroit Zoological Park’s Penguin- arium opened to the public on 1 October 1968. Although it was at that time, and in some respects remains to this day, a unique approach to displaying one of the public’s favourite zoo animals, by 1984 the zoo was faced with a rapidly ageing facility. A complete renovation of the building took place and the appro- priateness of the species then being ex- hibited was reviewed.

ORIGINAL DESIGN The original design has been described in detail by Austin (1978) but for convenience I have summarised the background and basic concepts here.

In the mid-1960s the director at that time, Frank McInnis, and the staff had become increasingly concerned about the zoo’s limited success with penguins. There was no area which had been specifically designed for the housing of the birds and their mortality was alarming with a life expectancy which rarely exceeded 90 days. Reproduction was non-existent.

Planning began for a specially designed facility which would focus not only on improved husbandry but also on educating the public about these fascinating Southern hemisphere birds. To ensure that as many factors as possible could be evaluated, the planning process was slow and methodical with nearly five years of planning and two years of construction before the exhibit was ready for the public opening.

Obviously the grievous mortality rate was the first problem to be attacked. Because most penguin species live in a harsh environment where many of the

bacteria, viruses and fungi commonly encountered in more temperate zones do not survive, penguins have developed no immunity against many of the common dangers to health. It was apparent that interaction with the public (a possible source of infection) would have to be eliminated and that a total environment without visitor contact needed to be created.

The only feasible means appeared to be to allow the public to see the birds behind glass. The resulting exhibit was a totally enclosed area with seven viewing windows along each of its three sides which allowed for the birds to be viewed from both above and below the water-line. The 21 windows, each measuring 1.9 x 2.4 m high, were double-glazed with tempered glass. The two layers are not sealed and condensation is combatted by forcing heated dehumidified air through small holes in the top and bottom of the window frames. On the whole the system works well but on humid summer days some condensation is formed. The outer windows on the public side can be lifted to allow for cleaning. The use of glass provided a simple, although not inexpensive, system of isolation but careful calculation was necessary in order to ensure large unobstructed viewing panels which had the strength to hold back the pressure of c.190 000 litres of water. An additional safety feature, which I have seen at no other facility, was the incorporation of a dike built in front of the outer windows to contain the water in the unlikely event of a failure of the glass. These troughs, each measuring 15 x 0.8 x 1 m high, were designed to hold

I26 A Q U A T I C t X H I H I l S

Plate 1. One of the graphics panels in the Penguinarium at Detroit Zoo shows various penguin postures and encourages young visitors to try to imitate them.

back the force of the descending water and greatly reduce any possible danger to visitors.

WATER AIR TEMPERATURE SYSTEMS In the original design various methods of filtration were used including sand and gravel. precipitation and diatomaceous earth filters; only the last named continues in use today. The flow is c.1000 litres per hour. There is an hourly wash down of the level land areas which drains into the sanitary sewer with freshwater replacement, coupled with a seven-day filter run. The pool is totally drained and cleaned twice a year. The system has resulted in excellent water clarity.

The only major mechanical change in

the renovation process was the installation of a vacuum pump to allow the removal of sediment from the bottom without draining the pool. Automatic valves were installed in the basement with pipes leading to each of the three sides of the exhibit. The pipes were buried in the gunite forming the new land area and the controls for the system installed inside the exhibit where the birds could not reach them but where the keeper could activate the process without descending to the basement.

The average water temperature is kept at around 10°C (maximum 13°C) using a 20 tonne capacity chiller which tempers about 20% of the water in the system. In the original exhibit it was necessary to maintain a lower temperature because of

A Q U A T I C E X H I B I T S 127

the Antarctic species then displayed but their subsequent removal has allowed a slight rise with no ill effect on the remaining species.

Air quality is an extremely important aspect of the system. Filtration begins with a conventional fibreglass filter, such as is in general commercial and domestic use, followed by a three-ply Tri-Dek filter and finally a sophisticated absolute membrane filter which can remove particles of up to 0.3 pm in size. The basic system has remained unchanged since its inception. The penguin area is air-conditioned throughout the year and is unheated in winter. The public area is not air-conditioned although in summer it derives some benefit from the cooling of the air and water in the exhibit as the doors to the outside are kept closed and there are no windows in the outer walls. In winter the public walkways are kept at a maximum of 10°C to melt ice and snow carried in by visitors.

The birds’ natural cycle has been reversed to a Northern hemisphere photo- period, the lighting regime following that of the natural daylight hours of Michigan, varying from 17 hours to 8-5 hours daily. The lighting system is automatic with manual override and dimmer.

THE EXHIBIT The basic feature of the penguin area is a triangular concrete island, measuring 18 m along each side and surrounded by water. The arrangement of the pool was the most important feature of the design of the Penguinarium for it allows the birds to swim continuously in one direction without reaching any artificial barrier. The public views the exhibit through the glass panels which occupy the major part of the walls of the enclosure.

Originally the concrete exhibit area was covered with white epoxy enamel to simulate an ice habitat but within a year some birds had developed bumblefoot or other foot problems and this surface was replaced with fibreglass false ice. This was

effective for some years but by 1984 the fibreglass was beginning to deteriorate and ingestion by the penguins was a potential danger. The second major deterioration was that, owing to the high mineral content of the local water source, the glass had become severely etched obstructing the viewing and giving the impression that the windows were not clean. In planning the renovation i t was necessary to keep both of these problems in focus. After exploring several alternatives the basic window design was left intact and only the inner layer was renewed using 15 mm thick laminated safety glass.

The surface materials of the island area, however, needed to be totally replaced and the management took the opportunity of considering the composition of the colony which then consisted of three Emperor penguins Aptenodytes forsteri, ten King penguins A . patagonica, five Adelie penguins Pygo- scelis adeliae, five Macaroni penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus, six Rockhopper penguins E. crestatus, two Little or Blue penguins Eudyptula minor and 16 Black- footed penguins Spheniscus demersus.

The Black-footed penguin, while breeding well within the facility, is a species which is widely kept and bred in captivity and it was decided that the accommodation should be devoted to species which are less commonly exhibited. Therefore all these birds were sent to other zoos before the renovation began. Emperor and Adelie penguins on the other hand require even more specialised conditions than we could offer and our stock was sent to join the colonies in the Antarctic facility at Sea World, San Diego (see Todd, this volume).

Instead of the single ‘ice habitat’ originally used for the exhibit, the new theme was concentrated on subantarctic species with each side of the triangle representing a typical habitat for particular species. Because of the popularity of the two largest penguin

I28 A Q U A T I C E X H I B I T S

species, one side of the island was designated for King penguins, while the second area was intended for the Macaroni and Rockhopper penguins: all three species had previously bred successfully in the display. The third area was to be devoted to the Blue penguins of Australia, the smallest of the penguins and at that time the only specimens in the United States. We had had very limited breeding success with this species with a few chicks hatched but no young reared to maturity. During the five-month renovation of their enclosure the reduced stock was housed in somewhat limited accommodation in the hospital quarters.

The three new areas of shoreline created on each side of the triangle were designed to simulate a typical breeding habitat for the four species to be housed

in the exhibit. A bare rocky granite coast for the King penguins, decom- posed sandstone for the Macaroni and Rockhopper penguins and sandy embankments for the Blue penguins. The simulation of the various rock surfaces was created from gunite, following the traditional method of construction with reinforcing bars covered by expanded metal and concrete blown onto the basic form. No moulds were used, the final shaping and colouring being done by hand with coloured photographs of natural habitats as guides. To avoid the recurrence of bumblefoot, the flat land area is covered with a firm but springy material, similar to that used for tennis hard courts, and manufactured for animal exhibits to suit individual requirements.

Plate 2. A graphics panel demonstrating the nests and eggs of three species of penguin, using life-sized artificial egg'.

A Q II A TIC EX H I XI TS I29

For nesting the two Eudyptes species are provided with eight shallow well- drained depressions with stones and some sticks supplied to the birds during the breeding season. The sandy embankments in the Blue penguin area contain prefabricated burrows (too small for the other birds in the display to enter even if they wished to do so) which lead to darkened nestboxes. Outside the Blue penguins’ breeding season plugs made of the same material as the bank itself stop the burrows and disguise them.

The most ambitious aspect of the project was the attempt to segregate the penguins into their particular land habitat while still allowing them full use of the pool. With the area intended for the Blue penguins this was simple, as access points to and from the water were made wide enough for only the small birds to pass through. With the larger birds we are attempting to condition them into using their own area of shoreline by offering food only on that side of the exhibit. This is not yet totally successful but the keepers are persevering with the training programme.

The penguins have always made use of the continuous swimming circuit offered by the pool. Much active swimming and porpoising take place in the early morning before the public arrives, but it is usual at any time of the day to see many birds swimming. Since the renovation, however, the King penguins seem to spend less time in the water, possibly because the pool was narrowed appreciably by the formation of the new land areas. This is a serious defect which it is planned to rectify.

To provide the birds with more exercise and the public with an interesting behavioural display, live minnows are released into the pool once a day (when available) causing an underwater feeding frenzy. The penguins deal with a live fish in much the same manner as a cat playing with a mouse, disabling and eviscerating it before it is consumed. To date there have been no adverse comments from the

public. A minnow holding tank is now under construction to assure a steady supply.

SERVICE AND PUBLIC AREAS As originally planned, access to the penguin area and the two off-display holding areas is strictly limited to the three keepers of the section, the veterinary staff and, when absolutely necessary, maintenance personnel. This semi-isolation provides valuable support to the mechanical protection systems.

Apart from normal repainting and maintenance, the original kitchen and food storage facilities, the 20 tonne capacity freezer for fish and the panels of warning lights and gauges situated in the keepers’ area have remained unchanged from the original building. The two isolation rooms used for quarantine, moulting birds and parents with young have also been left essentially as they were.

Some reorganisation of the public area, however, has taken place. Originally the public circulation was random; visitors could enter or leave via any of the three sets of doors situated on each side of the triangle. It was noticed that many people came in, looked at one side and left. If none of the birds was visible at that particular point these visitors saw no life at all in the exhibit. The new design provides for a one-way system with a specified entrance and exit leading every visitor around to each side of the exhibit. The other doors are marked as fire exits and fitted with alarms which are activated when they are opened.

A popular feature which has been retained is the broadcasting of a tape of sounds recorded from a wild penguin colony. This has always been well received by the visitors, few of whom realise that they are not hearing the calls of the birds in the display.

On the solid walls between the viewing panels the theme of the next habitat on view is introduced to the visitors by a

A Q U A T I C E X H I B I T S

Plate 3. Graphics panel, attached to one of the viewing windows of the exhibit, showing the ’follow the leader’ behaviour of penguins.

small area of simulated rockwork as used in that part of the exhibit.

GRAPHICS Improvement and extension of the graphics was considered one of the most important parts of the renovation. On the wall of the dike in front of each habitat are panels with paintings of the four species on exhibit and their size in relation to an ’average’ adult human figure. The smaller of the general information panels are placed on the walls between windows or on the glass itself. The large graphics are positioned along the outer walls, although none is placed directly opposite the viewing windows. One of two black and white educational panels, each measuring 2 x 3 m, depicts penguin predators; the other shows penguin ‘neighbours’. A large

coloured panel, 1.5 x2.4 m, displays a map of the Southern hemisphere showing nesting ranges of the various species. with each of the four species on exhibit represented in a different colour and the rest in black and white. In order to answer the most commonly asked question a Polar bear Thalarctos mari- timus is depicted with the international symbol for ‘No!’.

A large coloured mural depicting all the penguin species was retained from the original building and supplemented by a graphic showing a penguin food chain and foods which penguins and humans have in common, such as anchovies (shown on a pizza). Another coloured panel demonstrates various penguin postures and invites children to imitate them on a carpeted area in front of the graphic (Plate 1). A pair of panels, each

A Q U A T I C E X H I B I T S

Plate 4. One of the small panels which provide interesting information on the penguin species exhibited. Here the derivation of the name of the Macaroni penguin Eudyptes chrysolophus is explained.

1.2 x 2.4 m, demonstrates penguin heat loss compared with a panting dog and how the countershading of the birds’ plumage acts as a protection from predators.

Possibly the most used and appreciated graphic demonstrates the nests and eggs of the four species (Plate 2). The life-sized eggs are fabricated from rock maple, secured by long countersunk bolts and filled with epoxy. Retightening of the bolts is a weekly chore as children invariably try to remove them but this at least is confirmation that they see and touch the graphic!

The major presentations are interspersed with the smaller panels giving diverse snippets of information, from the water temperature in the exhibit and comments on porpoising or rockhopping behaviour to tips for photographers (Plates 3 and 4).

CONCLUSION The proposed cost of the renovation was US$600 000 with the final cost exceeding

this by some US$30000. It had been agreed that 25% of the cost of the project would go towards the educational graphics and this commitment was adhered to almost to the dollar. The internationally renowned architects Jones and Jones of Seattle were selected for the design process and the graphics were produced by Promotion Products Inc., Portland, Oregon. Credit should also be given to Jolly Miller Associates, Seattle, whose gunite representations far exceeded our originally high expectations. The work of renovation began in January and was completed by June 1985, the building being reopened to the public on 7 June.

In general flaws in the project have been small. One major problem has occurred in that the lighting of the individual graphics is not totally satisfactory and it has been impossible to prevent some reflection from the spotlights used to illuminate the graphics onto the viewing windows. Although we are confident that we will overcome this problem eventually, at present it does

132 A Q U A T I C E X H I B I T S

tend to detract from the sense of achievement.

We would be pleased to make copies of the text and photographs of graphics available to any interested zoo or aquarium and to agree to their reproduction in any non-commercial venture.

ACKhOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Detroit Zoo Registrar Doris Applebaum and Principal Zookeeper Lee Ennest for their assistance in preparing this paper. I also acknowledge my debt to the former Curator of Education, William Austin. whose paper detailing

the original construction of the Penguinarium provided me with considerable background material.

PRODUCT MENTIONED IN T H E TEXT

Exhibit substrate: polyurethane surfacing material of variable hardness/softness manufactured to order for use in animal exhibits by Intracor, POB 1948, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, USA.

REFERENCE AUSTIN. w. A. (1978): Penguin management at the Detroit Zoo. Int. Zoo Yb. 18: 66-70.

Manuscript submitted 14 January 1987

I n / . ZOO Yb. (1987) 2 6 132-136 0 The Zoological Society of London

The penguin and seabird building at the Lincoln Park Zoo KEVlN BELL’ & CHRISTINA KELLY2 ‘Curator and 2Ayuatic B i d s Keeper, Lincoln Park Zoological Gardens, 2200 North Cannon Drive. Chicago, Illinois 60614, USA

The lhco ln Park Zoological Gardens in Chicago is one of the oldest and most visited zoos in North America. Founded in 1868. its present day average annual attendance is estimated at over four million. Although only 13 ha in extent it contains a large and diverse collection with representatives of nearly 500 species. In 1977, as part of the master rebuilding plan, architects from Danforth. Rockwell & Carow began what would prove to be two years’ work to design a penguin and seabird facility. The construction began early in 1980 and the building, completed at a cost of 1.5 million US dollars, opened to the public in September 198 1.

The first step in the design phase was the establishment of a set of guidelines for the architects. Once we had specified the environmental parameters for the birds and viewing priorities for the public, an

extensive review of other penguin and seabird ex hi bi ts was conducted.

1. the viewing area should be made as large as possible, with the public given the maximum opportunity for underwater viewing; priority was to be given to ensuring clean, clear water; 2. guard rails should be avoided; visitors were to be allowed close to the exhibit glass, enabling them to feel a close contact with the birds and enhancing the viewing experience; (A similar system had worked with great success with the zoo’s Great Ape House.) 3 . for economic reasons the penguin exhibit should house subantarctic species; the mechanical systems required to achieve the subfreezing temperatures necessary for Antarctic species simply would not fit into our budget;

The framework for the design was: