Does Woodland Park Need Two Zoo Stores?

Does the Woodland Park Zoo really need a second zoo store? It's planning one for the West Entry expansion project. But as with many plans on the Zoo's books, the rationale for a second store, especially given the economic downturn, may be rendered moot by a dramatic change of landscape.

Everyone supports the goal of financial self-sufficiency for the Zoo — the primary motivation behind privatizing the zoo in 2002, and the objective behind the Zoo's Long Range Plan. The question in today's economy is whether a second zoo store makes any sense toward fulfilling that mission, or actually helps undermine it by saddling the Zoo with an unneeded money pit. And whether being in the merchandising business inevitably conflicts with a zoo's inherent mission of saving wildlife and promoting conservation.

The Long Range Plan is rooted in an assumption of robust economic growth in the region. Back in 2002, when the plan was formulated, growth seemed a given. Now every large Puget Sound employer, from Boeing to WaMu (J.P. Morgan) to Microsoft, is laying people off at unprecedented rates. An expected 50,000 jobs in Puget Sound already are on the chopping block. With the economy shrinking, the Long Range Plan's assumptions regarding population, construction and other growth are sorely obsolete.

The main argument put forward by the Zoo for a second store (the first is at the south entrance) is that patrons do not want to have to carry merchandise around while they visit the grounds. With the West Entry becoming the primary zoo entrance (another decision not well explained or justified), zoo-goers entering and exiting there would, if they bought stuff at the south store, have to carry it around before returning to their cars.

Inherent in this argument are the notions that zoo-goers simply cannot tolerate the inconvenience of toting a few goods a few extra yards, that the Zoo should be in the merchandising business, and that it should be all about loading patrons down with as much stuff as possible. Presumably the more stuff sold, the more money raised for the zoo. (Proceeds go "back to supporting the zoo's many conservation and education programs and animal care right here at the zoo," the Zoo's Web site notes.)

But is this really what a Zoo should be encouraging: More schlock?

A zoo should first and foremost be a place where people go to see live animals in a hospitable setting. To the extent that the viewing experience contributes to understanding and awareness of conservation and endangered species, a zoo is accomplishing its goal.

Undoubtedly a second Zoo store would carry products aimed at raising awareness about things like animal conservation, endangered species and global warming's impacts. The sentiment may be well-intended, but:

Construction of a second store paves over open space, contributing to runoff and pollution (the Zoo's plans for the West Entry include runoff abatement, but why abate something you could avoid in the first place?). New construction by its very nature contributes to global warming by using up valuable resources and polluting the air. Ongoing maintenance and operation impacts and costs need to be figured into the equation as well. The carbon footprint of a second store is especially lamentable when you consider it isn't really needed in the first place.

Ask a polar bear which he'd prefer: A second store selling fuzzy little polar bear facsimilies, or measures to fight global warming and curb junkification of a zoo.

The same line of reasoning argues against foisting more merchandise on people. Tchotskies eat up the earth's resources and further global warming. Having seen Humboldt Penguins (a new exhibit is scheduled to open this spring), do zoo patrons really need little penguin toys to take home? Shouldn't the zoo experience be enough?

Then there's the financial issue. We're talking about a retail operation opening during a recession that promises be an echo if not reprise of the Great Depression. Retail sales are collapsing throughout the country. Even during the customary height of retail frenzy, the holiday season, sales were off by 5 to 8 percent in most sectors. Some chains experienced as much as a 20 percent drop. Toy chains suffered with the rest: The KB Toys chain declared bankruptcy on Dec. 11, and Toys R Us holiday sales dropped by 3 percent over the previous year.

Apply a realistic sales formula to the existing zoo store and you get a gloomy picture. Building a second store when sales may drop at the first makes no sense whatsoever.

The Zoo might well respond that its store sales historically are immune to economic fluctuations. But if there's a lesson to the current meltdown, it's that people don't keep buying schlock forever. Especially if there's another store only a few hundred yards away selling the same stuff (we've seen what that's done to Starbucks and WaMu, among others).

The Zoo may be pinning its hopes on the non-zoo-going public boosting the second store. As planned, the store has an entry available to unticketed public. Save Our Zoo believes this is a violation of Seattle zoning law and consequently is party to an appeal of the master use permit for the West Entry partly on that basis. Seattle park property should not be used for permanent private vendors. That's just an inviolable principle for management of a cherished public resource.

We also doubt Zoo store patrons will make the odyssey to Phinney Ridge just to buy tchotskies and not go to the zoo.

In his new book, The Limits of Power, Andrew Bacevich talks about a crisis of profligacy, where as a culture we have come to think we can have whatever we want, as much as we want, whenever we want it. This assumption of (and addiction to) limitless consumption is what's destroying our economy, the planet and people's happiness. It's time for the Zoo Society to get the memo: The consumer society peaked a couple of years ago, is on the decline, and won't be revived any time soon.

Just as the massive parking garage project sent the wrong message about reducing the car culture, a second Zoo store sends the wrong message about the cutting consumption.

Save Our Zoo has asked the Zoo Society for information about the average purchase at the existing zoo store; its revenues, its net profit, what market research was done to justify a second store, whether those figures have penciled out in the ensuing economy, how much a second store would cannibalize sales from the first, and amortization of construction and other costs associated with the second store.

In other words, is this thing really going to make money? Or is it simply another "Boardwalk" or "Park Place" in the Zoo's empire building, a way to put money in the pockets of a construction industry that already has overbuilt so much in some regions it is asking for a federal bailout? We will report back any responses.

(Preliminarily, Zoo spokesman David Schaefer says surveys (which the Zoo does not make public, so independent verification of their data is impossible) indicate "people would prefer to visit a store on their way out." By that (dubious) reasoning, half of zoo-goers don't have a store available to them, Schaefer says. (Of course, all zoo-goers can shop at the existing store.)

Regarding the economy, Schaefer adds, the second store won't open till the summer of 2010, when the Zoo hopes an economic rebound is in progress. While that's a nice sentiment, the obvious response is, what if it isn't? (No current widely publicized forecasts call for recovery that early, with 2011 and 2012 considered "optimistic.")

Here's a thought: Instead of building a second store, why not sell south end store patrons reusable canvas bags with an apology for the inconvenience of having to cart stuff around the zoo grounds but the added benefit that hey, they're helping to save the animals and save the planet! There could even be a storage service to hold the merchandise till patrons were ready to leave the zoo grounds and go back home.

Put that way, a lot of patrons would be glad to lug their stuff a few extra yards.