ZSL London Zoo London Zoo Crisis of early 1990s

Wow you can go every week f the year for £80, that's just over £1.50 a week and you'd like to see London Zoo put people at every enclosure to explain to kids why the animals they are looking at aren't boring? Yes to a certain extent London Zoos remit should be to educate, but for you to take it upon yourself to explain Lions, isn't London Zoo's fault.
 
I'm not saying every enclosure all the time - I'm saying a scattering of volunteers at busy times would do no harm and might make people interested enough to want to come back again and again. You get more out of what you see if you understand more of what you see.
 
wenxue said:
I'm not saying every enclosure all the time - I'm saying a scattering of volunteers at busy times would do no harm and might make people interested enough to want to come back again and again. You get more out of what you see if you understand more of what you see.
Click to expand...

I think you are 100% right! I visited London zoo last summer for the first time in well over 15 years and I wasn't overly impressed, to me it seemed to be a big kids playground with just a few animals thrown in.

For me I dont take much notice of the signs as I know in most cases what animal I'm looking at, and if not have a good idea what group it is in, then I will look just to be sure.

The idea of having a few folks around the zoo (or any zoo) is also simple common sense, I've seen it in action at Philadelphia zoo and let me tell you it really does work, so much so that it was my lasting impression of the zoo ( but maybe it was because the lady was just so good at her job)
I get the idea that you might be American by your style of writing (no offence if you are not!), but Americans know how there things work.

Now onto the website, again you are absouletly right. When I'm looking to go to a new zoo in a different country or another area of the UK my first port of call is the website, I look for how easy is it to find (and by public transport if outside the UK), the price, opening times, and what food is on offer, which is also important if you are away for more that half a day, but most importantly what animals are on display, if I cant see this on a website easily and in clear good detail I might very well decide to look elsewhere.

Can I ask you to look at Dudley zoo's site to see how they do it, just look on the news section and you will see how easily it can be done, with animal blogs ( written by the animlas themselves in some cases:p).
Also their season ticket is less that half the price of London, so for sheer value for money I know in my mind which is best.
 
chizlit said:
Can I ask you to look at Dudley zoo's site to see how they do it, just look on the news section and you will see how easily it can be done, with animal blogs ( written by the animlas themselves in some cases:p).
Also their season ticket is less that half the price of London, so for sheer value for money I know in my mind which is best.
Click to expand...

Have you taken into consideration that membership of London also allows free entry into Whipsnade? Each of them have a lot more animals than Dudley and together they offer a massive variety. I can easily spend a full day at London or Whipsnade but struggle to do the same at Dudley, though I accept this requires some interest in non-mammals (for London). I'm not saying I don't like Dudley, it's a welcome part of the vast UK zoo smorgasbord and they achieve a lot with very limited resources (others could learn) but overall I think you're fighting a losing battle if you're claiming it's "better" than London -some aspects arguably, but hardly overall.

At the end of the day it's "horses for courses", personally I think other zoo memberships (the ones with significant reciprocal visiting privileges) offer better value to the mobile and well-travelled UK zoo-goer.
 
I'd love to get to Whipsnade but not having a car it's almost impossible for me to do so. I'm not American. I was born and bred in Blackpool but have lived in London since I was 19. I do work with an American though so maybe I have picked up a few americanisms from her :).

My partner lives in Liverpool and I'm going to visit him in June and we are planning a day out to Chester Zoo then. I went there a few times as a kid and have fraught memories of my Nana breaking her camera there. I suspect I won't recognise the place anymore.
 
Shorts said:
Have you taken into consideration that membership of London also allows free entry into Whipsnade? Each of them have a lot more animals than Dudley and together they offer a massive variety. I can easily spend a full day at London or Whipsnade but struggle to do the same at Dudley, though I accept this requires some interest in non-mammals (for London). I'm not saying I don't like Dudley, it's a welcome part of the vast UK zoo smorgasbord and they achieve a lot with very limited resources (others could learn) but overall I think you're fighting a losing battle if you're claiming it's "better" than London -some aspects arguably, but hardly overall.

At the end of the day it's "horses for courses", personally I think other zoo memberships (the ones with significant reciprocal visiting privileges) offer better value to the mobile and well-travelled UK zoo-goer.
Click to expand...

No I didn't know London's offer also included Whipsnade, that is a horse of a different colour and does make it good value indeed assuming you can travel to Whipsnade with ease.
I wasn't suggesting Dudley is better than London, just the season ticket was better value.
It is also not an idea for me to compare London and Dudley as they have nothing in common except they both have long histories and have had money problems in the past.
As you know I am totally biased towards Dudley (with all its faults), if I lived in London and had a long history with it I dare say I'd feel the same about it, but I dont so can see an outside view from an infrequent visitor point of view.
 
To be fair to chizlit, for him/her the time and cost of getting to Dudley must be hugely cheaper than the cost of getting to London.

My advice to anyone going to the latter is quite simple - don't use your car to go into Central London, and if at all possible use Baker Street as your public transport hub.

This offers the choice of four tube lines, the option of going past the waterfowl in Regent's Park or a quick walk to get the 274 bus ( which drops you off outside the Zoo) and at the end of your journey you have a quick trip into the heart of Central London if you feel the urge to explore the metropolis.

To me it seemed to be a big kids playground with just a few animals thrown in.
Click to expand...
No comment! The heart of the Zoo in the main garden, from the Restaurant and the Shop down to "Animal Adventure" has badly over-egged the non-animal attractions, IMHO. Interesting that you feel the same, chizlit.
 
IanRRobinson said:
The heart of the Zoo in the main garden, from the Restaurant and the Shop down to "Animal Adventure" has badly over-egged the non-animal attractions, IMHO. Interesting that you feel the same, chizlit.
Click to expand...

I'm in absolute agreement with you both on this one.

Although I like and generally stand up for London I always feel there's a lot of wasted space when I visit, I also think there's too much lawn at Bristol but realise others might prefer the current garden/zoo balance.
 
Shorts said:
I'm in absolute agreement with you both on this one.

Although I like and generally stand up for London I always feel there's a lot of wasted space when I visit, I also think there's too much lawn at Bristol but realise others might prefer the current garden/zoo balance.
Click to expand...
Given my previous comments re:London in other threads, i'm obviously in agreement too!people should be going to the zoo to see animals,if they want rides or playgrounds they should look elsewhere.
Re: Bristol, i agree, they have few enough animals as it is without wasting space on the maze, rope trail amongst other things. There are probably too many lawns too that could be used for exhibits. The dinosaurs in a zoo of that size was a crazy idea,though dont know where theyve put them!
 
pipaluk said:
Given my previous comments re:London in other threads, i'm obviously in agreement too!people should be going to the zoo to see animals,if they want rides or playgrounds they should look elsewhere.
Re: Bristol, i agree, they have few enough animals as it is without wasting space on the maze, rope trail amongst other things. There are probably too many lawns too that could be used for exhibits. The dinosaurs in a zoo of that size was a crazy idea,though dont know where theyve put them!
Click to expand...

And if we're talking lawns and wasted space can I also throw Twycross into the mix:eek:
 
pipaluk said:
people should be going to the zoo to see animals,if they want rides or playgrounds they should look elsewhere.
Re: Bristol, i agree, they have few enough animals as it is without wasting space on the maze, rope trail amongst other things. There are probably too many lawns too that could be used for exhibits. The dinosaurs in a zoo of that size was a crazy idea,though dont know where theyve put them!
Click to expand...

I have never understand why Zoos feel the necessity to provide Play areas for Children, its as if a visit to see Animals isn't thought sufficient in itself and children need other diversions such as a playground. I wonder what would happen if play areas weren't provided- would children miss them- perhaps they would just accept it and pay more attention to the 'zoo' part of the visit?

Re Bristol- The extensive lawns are no doubt the result of its Victorian layout- presumably designed for picnicing on after strolling around the perimeter and viewing animals in their original menagerie- style houses and cages. Even today it still has some of that feel and I guess planning issues etc won't let them encroach on these areas to give more badly-needed space for the animal collection.
 
Although its bigger than London or Bristol, a good example of an 'urban' zoo making good use of its space is Paignton, i may be wrong, but i don't remember vast areas of empty lawn or given up for adventure playgrounds.
 
Last edited:
Shorts said:
I'm in absolute agreement with you both on this one.

Although I like and generally stand up for London I always feel there's a lot of wasted space when I visit, I also think there's too much lawn at Bristol but realise others might prefer the current garden/zoo balance.
Click to expand...

Literally at the heart of this is the Events Lawn. This exists because it was intended, many moons ago, to build a Hippopotamus house there as a satellite to the neighbouring Elephant & Rhinoceros pavilion.

For that reason the 1876 Lion House came down, which I think older RP afficionados will remember as being the zoo's hub exhibit

Something really needs to be there, regardless of what use is made of the adjoining Barclay Court, Casson pavilion or Animal Adventure.
 
Pertinax said:
I have never understand why Zoos feel the necessity to provide Play areas for Children, its as if a visit to see Animals isn't thought sufficient in itself and children need other diversions such as a playground. I wonder what would happen if play areas weren't provided- would children miss them- perhaps they would just accept it and pay more attention to the 'zoo' part of the visit?

Re Bristol- The extensive lawns are no doubt the result of its Victorian layout- presumably designed for picnicing on after strolling around the perimeter and viewing animals in their original menagerie- style houses and cages. Even today it still has some of that feel and I guess planning issues etc won't let them encroach on these areas to give more badly-needed space for the animal collection.
Click to expand...

As a father of two kids who don't seem to be developing my interests whole-heartedly, a decent play area does help break up a zoo visit. Where I differ with most UK zoo designers is that I think the way to do this is to make this sort of thing an indoor facility, preferably with a coffee/snack bar at the back. Woburn does this, and a very civilised way to spend half-an-hour or so it is too.
 
Pertinax said:
I have never understand why Zoos feel the necessity to provide Play areas for Children, its as if a visit to see Animals isn't thought sufficient in itself and children need other diversions such as a playground.
Click to expand...

As both a teacher, and a parent (of four young children) I wholly agree with you. It is notable that two of the big French zoos that are both massively commercial and massively successful - Beauval and Amneville - have only tiny playgrounds. If I want to go to the playground, I can go to a pretty good one in my local park, and it's free. At risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, too many children are allowed to do what they want to do (or think they want to) without being forced to do stuff that they might, initially, see as being boring. There's a thread running at the moment about Northwest trek, in the USA http://www.zoochat.com/22/northwest-trek-wildlife-park-review-270173/, in which the suggestion is made that an hour's ride around the park wouldn't appeal to children. Pity those poor children who can't find wonder in a drive through beautiful surroundings, with animals to see!
 
Pertinax said:
I have never understand why Zoos feel the necessity to provide Play areas for Children, its as if a visit to see Animals isn't thought sufficient in itself and children need other diversions such as a playground. I wonder what would happen if play areas weren't provided- would children miss them- perhaps they would just accept it and pay more attention to the 'zoo' part of the visit.
Click to expand...
Agree totally, when my daughter was younger, i found it infuriating that some zoos put their playgrounds almost immediately after the entrance! They should be tucked away in a corner at the end of a circuit!this is one of the best things about whipsnade,the playground can easily be avoided til last, & probably why i have been more often & enjoyed my visits there more than other zoos over the last few years!
 
IanRRobinson said:
As a father of two kids who don't seem to be developing my interests whole-heartedly, a decent play area does help break up a zoo visit.
Click to expand...

I don't know where it comes from! My parents were never interested in zoos/animals nor were/are my children. But I was almost from the year dot and began pestering to visit zoos from about the age of six..:eek:

Maybe playgrounds have an important role after all- to distract bored children of zoo enthusiasts!
 
IanRRobinson said:
Literally at the heart of this is the Events Lawn. This exists because it was intended, many moons ago, to build a Hippopotamus house there as a satellite to the neighbouring Elephant & Rhinoceros pavilion.

For that reason the 1876 Lion House came down, which I think older RP afficionados will remember as being the zoo's hub exhibit

Something really needs to be there, regardless of what use is made of the adjoining Barclay Court, Casson pavilion or Animal Adventure.
Click to expand...
I never knew about the previous plans for a hippo house.
I agree something should be built there,along with the north bank & mappins,it is probably the worst example of unutilised space in the zoo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top