The National Zoo is slated to become the latest site of the 21st century obsession with security theater. Fences, checkpoints, and bag searches will stand between visitors and the animals that have long been a welcome distraction and learning tool for both locals and tourists. Without a real reason, except perhaps the latest fashion of installing metal detectors and employing people to poke around bags, the added security is unnecessary and will irreparably alter the celebrated and historic public space.
Designed by famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, the National Zoo was founded in 1889 and is part of the Smithsonian Institution. True to the original intention, the zoo remains integrated with the natural landscape. Visitors and animals alike enjoy tree cover and winding paths showcasing crowd favorites such as giant pandas, Asian elephants, great apes, tigers, and others. With free admission and multiple entrances, the zoo functions as a park, inviting families, locals out for a walk, joggers, and others to pass through or linger hassle free.
Now, a new security plan to be considered on Thursday by the National Capital Planning Commission threatens to destroy the park. The first phase calls for “supplemental perimeter fencing” — 4,347 linear feet of it — that will also reduce the entrances to the zoo from 13 down to three, drastically limiting the accessibility of the zoo.
The second phase of the plan calls for new, permanent security checkpoints with spaces for bag checks and metal detectors. Although the proposal says that these security checkpoints would only be manned on the busiest days of year, if the ratcheting up effect of the security elsewhere has taught us anything, this will quickly turn into daily security checks. The third phase is linked to the mid-zoo landing point parking garage construction and a planned fourth entrance from the garage.
Just because other Smithsonian Institutions that are buildings, rather than parks, have more stringent security does not mean that the zoo or the National Mall, for example, should subject visitors to long lines as well.
Indeed, none of the proposals have outlined a concrete justification for the added security and two instances of gun violence at the zoo would not have been prevented by such measures.
The shootings at the zoo that occurred in 2000 and 2014 took place outside the zoo gates. If anything, security checkpoints might have resulted in more carnage as long lines and bottlenecks present an acute security risk and an easier target.
Long lines and security theater are not needed at the National Zoo. Adding checkpoints and metal detectors would not only waste the time of visitors but also waste money without making the zoo better. After all, zoos should be concerned with keeping the animals in rather than keeping visitors out.
