San Francisco and Oakland Zoos: a detailed comparison

 *disclaimer, not my photos

 

 

After my recent trip to the LA Zoo, I really got to thinking about how blessed we are to have not just one, but two world-class zoos in the Bay Area. I did find that LA Zoo had a fascinating species list, many of which I had never seen before (even with my trip to the LA Zoo 10 years prior), but  that it was  also very worn down in many respects. Part of it, of course, I am sure, is the punishing Southern California heat. I am sure a lot of that is due to lack of funds and its age. Like all zoos, I think that LA zoo just needs more money. It did, however, also make me feel grateful that the Bay has not one, but two absolutely beautiful zoos.

Because of the 70 million dollar upgrade the Oakland Zoo received for its California Conservation Trail, after years of lagging behind SF Zoo, Oakland is now toted as the superior of the two Bay Area Zoos. I just don't know if I find this to be particularly true, if I am being honest. I think the California Trail is one of the singular most impressive things I have ever seen at a zoological facility. I also think, however, that the remaining part of the Oakland Zoo is otherwise wholly unremarkable. 

Whilst I do have my bias towards the San Francisco Zoo, I do quite love both zoos! I think they both possess pluses and deltas (most of which would be significantly reduced with more money). They are both AZA accredited facilities (which is the gold standard for animal care), they both do  inestimable amounts of conservation and animal rescue work, and provide world-class care for its residents.  They are also in constant collaboration. Again, I cannot stress enough that I love both zoos, but I love San Francisco Zoo more.

I would generally describe the scenario as Oakland Zoo is largely overrated, whilst SF Zoo is wholly over-hated grossly disproportionate to anything actually wrong with it.

 I have made an exhaustive list breaking down all comparisons that I could think of between the two. Whilst I ended up awarding more to SF Zoo (based on merit, and not on bias), I must also give credit where it is due to Oakland.

 

⯪Getting There (Car-less): San Francisco⯫

If you do not drive, Oakland Zoo is more difficult to get to. Yes, you CAN take BART to Coliseum Station and take an AC Transit bus, but from there the bus will take you anywhere from 35-minutes to a full on hour. San Francisco Zoo has its own MUNI metro light rail line (which is a 45-minute ride from Montgomery Street Station downtown), and a 15-minute bus ride from Daly City BART. MUNI runs more frequently and is more reliable than AC Transit(which feels like an insane thing to even say, IYKYK), although the AC Transit bus will drop you off right outside the zoo. Multiple bus line serve the San Francisco Zoo on top of the MUNI light rail. (Yes, I am also aware that ride shares for both are an option, but many of us do not like to use them.)

 

⯪The Views: Oakland⯫

The Swiss-made gondolas that take you to the California Trail and the observation decks (as in multiple) offer incomparable views of the most breath-taking vistas. This one is not even a question. Even the views from the old elephant enclosure that look onto the Oakland Hills are nothing short of spectacular. Granted, I don't think Ocean Beach and the Cliff House are nothing to turn your nose up at, either. You also can't really see anything outside of San Francisco Zoo whilst you are in it.

 

 ⯪Walkability: San Francisco⯫ 

Oakland Zoo is all  steep hills and dead ends. San Francisco Zoo is all mostly flat with only slight inclines, and all paths interconnect back to each other.

 

⯪Carousel: San Francisco⯫ 

Oakland Zoo has more rides, and has both a mini train and a carousel. I don't care for the mini train in either (but I guess if you are a kid, this is very fun), but you absolute cannot compete with the SF Zoo's hand-carved  Dentzel menagerie carousel from 1921. It's also located in a beautiful show building.

 

 ★In terms of a breakdown of who has the superior version of comparable exhibits★

Ties: 

• Meerkats: both SF Zoo and Oakland have exhibits that are too similar to really compare them (although I love SF Zoo's tie-in to prairie dogs)
• Agouti: again, the enclosures are too similar
• Large (giant) tortoise enclosures: (although they have a couple of more on-display yards in Oakland) 

 

Unsure Category:

• The emus and wallaroos. I have only seen the ones at SF Zoo, because the Australia area of Oakland Zoo is a separate ticket and you can only see it from the train.

 

Where Oakland Zoo Exceeds Compared to SF Zoo: 

• Lions (more room)
• Wolves (SF Zoo has Mexican wolves, Oakland has Gray wolves, with Oakland having substantial more room)
• Black bears (more room, more modern, naturalistic enclosure)
• Grizzly bears more room, slightly better enclosures (although SF's is pretty great) 
• Bison (the Bison who live in Golden Gate Park are cared for by the SF Zoo staff in their 11-acre paddock, whereas Oakland Zoo has 13 acres)
• Having hyenas. Period. 

 

 Where San Francisco Zoo Exceeds Compared to Oakland:

• Barnyard/ Children's Zoo area
• Giraffes
• Zebras (shared with giraffes in a very large Savannah-style enclosure)
• Tropical aviaries (SF Zoo has multiple) 
• Lemurs(by leaps and bounds, all puns intended--Oakland's looks like a roadside zoo attraction, SF's is a world class enclosure)
• Flamingos
• Bug House (Oakland's is dark and claustrophobic)
• Camels (SF has bactrian, Oakland has dromedary)
• Turtles (whilst Oakland has an amazing reptile house, SF Zoo has bigger and outdoor turtle enclosures, as well as nicer indoor ones)
• a more diverse species list represented 

 

✷Some final thoughts✷: 

The San Francisco Zoo may still be on track to get giant pandas at some point in the coming year or two (sadly, we have yet to get a real update on this in a while, but I have a feeling we will know more once the lions have been relocated to a facility that can better manage  Jasiri's age-related nerve issues. 😭). Aside from its 70 million dollar California section addition, Oakland Zoo...is just a zoo. Again, a lot of the exhibits for animals that both SF and Oakland Zoo have are better at San Francisco. Even with some of its 80+ year old enclosures that have been weathered by being right next to to ocean, San Francisco has some nice enclosures have been updated. For how vocally Oakland gets touted as the "superior" of the two zoos, I was pretty shocked on my last visit to see so many...cage-type enclosures. (yes, this are still nice enclosures that meet AZA standards and they were mostly primates--which are notorious for escaping...and SF Zoo has a few of these, too... but still?!). I was also pretty surprised at how fewer species Oakland has represented--a lot of whom do not have the "more room" that has been repeatedly touted (again, WTF is that lemur enclosure?!?!). The baboon enclosure is another one I was so unimpressed with. I was also wholly unimpressed (and borderline offended) by the zebra and giraffe enclosures at Oakland Zoo, especially compared to their beautiful Savannah at SF Zoo, and the fact that they get to interact with each other in a mixed species habitat.

One of the other things that I think that SF Zoo does better is charm. It just feels like one big charming backyard garden that just...happens to have two giant rhinos in it? LOL. 

All in all, I would once again like to stress that I love both zoos. A lot. There are a lot of things that they share, and there are a lot of areas where both need improvement. They are both wonderful zoos. I cannot stress this enough, they are both invaluable because of the work that they do, and also as part of the communities they're located in. I love them both, and I am so happy they're here. 💖