Figure 7 - “ Zoo ”, Page 19 ( Browne , 1992 )
Figure 8 - “ Zoo ”, Page 18 ( Browne , 1992 )
ARCH321 illustrated are interacting with the pool , but rather have decided to stay on the concrete areas . Interestingly the only positive interaction between the animals and their enclosures illustrated within the book is between the giraffes and the Giraffe House ( Fig . 3 ); the giraffe leans through the window to access the building , expressing an eagerness to enter the structure and suggesting a feeling of security within it . The illustrations of both the Elephant and Rhinoceros enclosures ( Fig . 11 & Fig . 6 ) both depict the animals as objects within the enclosure , with no engagement with the architectural space , alienating them from the post-modern Casson “ Elephant and Rhinoceros Pavilion ” in which they reside .
The detachment represented in the book contradicts the active involvement and playfulness expressed by the animals in the film ‘ New Architecture at the London Zoo ’ ( New Architecture at the London Zoo , 1936 ) ( Fig . 10 ) which shows the penguins engaging with their habitat . When designing , Lubetkin “ was greatly concerned about animal welfare ” however his belief was that an honest architectural artifact was far superior to a dishonest replica of the natural habitat ( Shapland & Van Reybrouck , 2007 ). The design was lauded at the time for “ exploit [ ing ] the characteristics of the penguins ” and “ produc [ ing ] them to the public ”, as well as the varied floor textures introduced to prevent boredom and discomfort for the penguins ( Shapland & Van Reybrouck , 2007 ). In 1950 it was announced that the
13
ARCHITECTURE