Zoos Within Zoos

[birdsandbats]

When looking through America's Top 100 Zoos and Aquariums again for the millionth time, I noted that two complexes in particular (Shedd Aquarium's Wild Reef and Toledo Zoo's ProMedica Museum of Natural History) where noted as being "zoos within zoos". That is, complexes that, where they stand alone facilities, would be considered noteworthy collections by themselves. Does anyone have any other examples? Obviously any exhibit complex could 'theoretically' become its own facility, but I am specifically taking about complexes large enough and of high enough quality that they would be considered good enough for a ZooChatter to stop there on a zoo trip on their own.

The one not mentioned already that comes to mind for me is Berlin Zoo's Aquarium.

 

[Maguari]

The one not mentioned already that comes to mind for me is Berlin Zoo's Aquarium.

Definitely that.

I would think Leipzig's Gondwanaland and Chester's Islands would be good candidates as well. Islands in particular would make for a surprisingly well-rounded standalone zoo - the zoo would have orangs, bears, tigers, gibbons, monkeys, wild cattle, wild pigs, tree kangaroos, tapirs, small mammals, big crocs and tortoises, cassowaries, hornbills, a few dozen smaller aviary bird species, a decent range of smaller herps and inverts and some nice freshwater fish. I'd visit that.

Not so well rounded perhaps, but Wroclaw's Terrarium and Afrykarium would definitely both be worth the visit on their own as well.

 

[pangolin12]

Zurich’s masoala would be a good shout

 

[pipaluk]

London's Clore pavilion and moonlight world in the 1970s was incredible!

 

[Westcoastperson]

San Diego Safari Parks Savanna exhibits and Wild Asia at Bronx both would be notable facilities by themselves. Both could definitely function as standalone facilities. Monterey Bay Aquariums Open Ocean and Georgia Aquariums Ocean explorer both are impressive facilities by themselves. Every region at Miami.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

London's Clore pavilion and moonlight world in the 1970s was incredible!

In terms of variety of species to see perhaps but whether the best husbandry conditions were provided is another issue entirely.

I say that by the way as someone whose favourite part of the zoo is the Clore.

 

[carl the birder]

skansesn in stockholm got a aquarium/terairum are inside that it it own zoo. it is ownnd sperate from the zoo and you ned to pay extra to enter. it is literly a zoo in a zoo

 

[vogelcommando]

Burger's complex of Bush, Ocean and Desert ( the Netherlands ) also could be seen as a zoo in a zoo and also the new Mangrove-dome is kind of a zoo in a zoo.

 

[Skukuza]

Bristol Zoo would be / would have been a potential candidate IMO

Insect House (one of my favourite exhibits ever with predator prey Jewel Wasp exhibit)
Reptile House (often see stand alone reptile collections)
Aquarium (scaling back a bit now it feels ready for site closure with closed/boarded exhibits)
Nocturnal House (possibly not something I would divert to currently but thinking about former/current occupants of the house Sand Cats, Aye Aye, Cuscus, Quoll, etc etc I may have done)

none would be full day attractions but certainly would hold ones attention for a few hours.

 

[Tim May]

London's Clore pavilion and moonlight world in the 1970s was incredible!

And there was a sign that stated that there were more species of mammal in the Clore Pavilion alone than in any other zoo in the UK

 

[Chlidonias]

I thought this was going to be a thread about a zoo collection within the boundaries of another, separately-run, zoo collection. My immediate thought was the Schmutzer Primate Center which is inside the Ragunan Zoo in Jakarta.

 

[Brum]

Islands in particular would make for a surprisingly well-rounded standalone zoo - the zoo would have orangs, bears, tigers, gibbons, monkeys, wild cattle, wild pigs, tree kangaroos, tapirs, small mammals, big crocs and tortoises, cassowaries, hornbills, a few dozen smaller aviary bird species, a decent range of smaller herps and inverts and some nice freshwater fish.

Islands was the one that sprung immediately to my mind as well (possibly because I was there yesterday ) and it really could be a zoo within its own right. It can take easily take two hours to see everything, even longer if you want to spot every species in the aviaries, and as noted it does have a very comprehensive collection as you pointed out, with some proper ABC species and some right little treasures as well.

I'd say that the Tropical Realm of past years could also have been a contender for a standalone attraction, not so much nowadays though.

 

[MRJ]

Burger's complex of Bush, Ocean and Desert ( the Netherlands ) also could be seen as a zoo in a zoo and also the new Mangrove-dome is kind of a zoo in a zoo.

Very much so. In fact Bush was built specifically to create a winter destination within the Zoo, and included a large restaurant for that purpose. It succeeded beyond expectations, and resulted in a massive increase in visitation. Many of these visitors never visit other parts of the zoo.

 

[Carl Jones]

London's Clore pavilion and moonlight world in the 1970s was incredible!

Yes, they held a great diversity, although better that they now have fewer species held in improved conditions.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Very much so. In fact Bush was built specifically to create a winter destination within the Zoo, and included a large restaurant for that purpose. It succeeded beyond expectations, and resulted in a massive increase in visitation. Many of these visitors never visit other parts of the zoo.

And having visited Burgers during a -7°C cold snap in February 2018, I was very glad indeed for the lush warmth of Bush!

I literally had icicles in my moustache and beard after walking from the train station to the zoo......

 

[Ituri]

The Henry Doorly Zoo comes to mind. Lied Jungle, Desert Dome and Scott Aquarium could all be successful stand-alone attractions.

 

[FBBird]

London's Clore pavilion and moonlight world in the 1970s was incredible!

Sadly not now though. Mappin Terraces in those days would qualify:
Sheep and goats on top, bears in the middle, pigs and I think Blackbuck at the bottom, aquatic birds along the front (over the years that pond held Gannets, pelicans, flamingos, gulls and penguins at different times).

 

[Jurek7]

Zoo Kronberg is two zoos with a fence running through the middle. If I understand well, one half is owned by the Opel family and focuses on exotic animals, especially African ungulates, and the other half is owned by municipality and shows native German animals. I must say I do not fully understand this arrangement, any German member please, feel free to correct me.

 

[Tim May]

Sheep and goats on top, bears in the middle, pigs and I think Blackbuck at the bottom.....

Various different ungulates have been kept at the bottom of the Mappin Terraces, including takin long ago.

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

So this thread is talking about attractions that are big enough that they can stand as a zoo on their own?

Well considering they are practically the size of Magic Kingdom, Kilimanjaro Safaris can easily be a private safari park attraction that would attract a lot of guests. If that's not enough, then the whole Africa area of Disney's Animal Kingdom can definitely stand out as an African themed zoo that guests would easily love to go there since it also features Gorilla Falls Exploration Trail alongside restaurants, shops, and bars that was themed around Africa and a show called Festival of Lion King that would attract many guests there.

I simply think the collection of African animals in one area in Disney is pretty impressive considering there aren't a lot of zoos that would house that many african animals, let alone putting all of them in one area.