Does London need a completely new zoo?

I lived in London for a short time, and visited it recently again. I would put the new zoo in the south or east outskirts of the city. Must be away from Whipsnade and Chessington, must be reachable by Tube and near the major motorway. 10 miles of the city centre you already have large agricultural fields and meadows where one can put a zoo.

No, London is not Coruscant (nor Bangkok) with nothing but buildings. ;)

Jana summed up how London population of residents and tourists can support a new landscape zoo. And would support London Zoo very well if it had standard of a major world zoo.
 
Last edited:
To add a new (related) discussion topic, how can densely urban zoos expand? Not just London Zoo, but any zoo in a large city with little open space?

Well what do people do to live in dense urban spaces? We live in multi-story apartments or condos (I am in a condo myself).

I wonder if there is a way for a zoo to build a two or three story exhibit and do it well? Most reptile houses are indoors and I see no reason why they could not be two story. Or what about a really nice large indoor complex such as those that already exist (indoor rainforests, etc) and just adding an outdoor exhibit on the roof?

Thoughts?
 
Arizona Docent said:
I wonder if there is a way for a zoo to build a two or three story exhibit and do it well? Most reptile houses are indoors and I see no reason why they could not be two story. Or what about a really nice large indoor complex such as those that already exist (indoor rainforests, etc) and just adding an outdoor exhibit on the roof?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Such as Philadelphia Zoo's new trails?
This is exactly the expansion they started planning over five years ago
 
I think (almost) every city has farmland on its outskirts, where one can build a zoo.

Also, many cities build zoos inside urban green spaces (Singapore for example) and don't believe it is 'destruction' of the nature but type of recreation function of nature. Large zoos are typically oases of wild biodiversity, too.

London Zoo is special case, because it sits in the middle of of many monotonous acres of open grass lawns of Regents Park. These emptyish lawns are not much used by people and of little value for air quality or urban biodiversity. Adding one or two lawns into the zoo would improve recreation function. If some trees and bushes were planted, as is typical for zoo exhibits, the value of improving air quality and biodiversity would grow, too. And non-zoo goes would still have many more grass lawns.
 
I think this is a fascinating post actually - thinking the impossible outside the box for instance. Does London need another zoo - simple answer no ! Should London zoo move well that's a possible ? Should London Zoo be allowed to expand - yes.
London does not need another Zoo we have Chessington and PWP and The Aquaruim all in London or on the doorstep.
Should it move well again it raises the same question as to a new Zoo - where - south is out of the question ,east was a possibility but the Olympic park has put paid to that west - too built up so it leaves North London probably somewhere along the north circular road but that would entail buying up large quantities of industrial and commercial land so it becomes dead in the water financially.
So should London be allowed to extend - yes in fact a good idea perhaps taking a further 25 acres of Regents Park . How would it work - assuming they get 25 acres in Regents Park I would sell off the majority of Snowdon side of the Zoo except the offices. I'm sure this would go to residential development. The other major problem London needs to overcome is somehow demolish there listed buildings - it could only work if all factors were put together - therefore highly unlikely.If it was to work would I like to see large animals like elephants return - no keep them at Whipsnade .
 
Animal Friendly said:
If London did need another zoo I am sure the demand for one would have been met years ago by some zoological entrepreneur, there was a safari park once at Windsor, opened by the Smart family in the late sixties, it is now LEGOLAND.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget what happened to ZSL Biota. I dread to think how much money went into that idea before the plug was pulled.
 
Does London need another zoo? No I don't think so, there are plenty of animal attractions in London and if we were to look at collections inside the M25 or even just on the outside of the M25 you could say the area was already full of zoos!

What I would like to see is London concentrate more on Whipsnade, adding some small mammal houses. Imagine the scope for a large nocturnal/rodent/small mammal house at whipsnade (I know it has that small education buildling with various bits and peices though).

If only more zoos concentrated on the smaller stuff as well as the big crowd pullers.
 
I think the situation is quite clear: London does not need another zoo - it needs a better zoo. And I think that over the past 10 years it has slowly been getting one.
This could never be a simple process or a rapid one: some projects have worked well, like the old Bird House's reincarnation as the Blackburn Pavilion and the new penguin exhibit: others, I feel, have rather gone off at half-cock because of all the compromises that have had to be made, e.g. the Mappins.
Although I have concerns about the new lion complex, I am very much in favour of the smaller projects like the redeveloped north bank aviary and the lemur walk-through. There are other neglected areas within the current boundaries that could be transformed with an imaginative investment in smaller scale projects. What about an Amphibian Ark for example?
Then when all the zoo's space is used effectively ZSL will have a much stronger case when they grasp the nettle by either applying for that extra land within Regents Park or seeking permission to modify one or more of their lower-grade listed buildings to create top class exhibits.

Alan
 
gentle lemur said:
I think the situation is quite clear: London does not need another zoo - it needs a better zoo. And I think that over the past 10 years it has slowly been getting one.
This could never be a simple process or a rapid one: some projects have worked well, like the old Bird House's reincarnation as the Blackburn Pavilion and the new penguin exhibit: others, I feel, have rather gone off at half-cock because of all the compromises that have had to be made, e.g. the Mappins.
Click to expand...

Agree on virtually all of this, particularly the first statement.

Re the recent projects, my grading would be;
Blackburn Pavilion- Good.:)
Penguin Beach & Tiger Territory- Good.:)
Gorilla Kingdom/Sobell area- not quite so good.:confused:
Mappins- not good.:(
 
I was thinking about Chessington as a London destination, but not specifically a zoo. Look at the price of it though! £25 offer if you book 5 days in advance! I'm in the East Midlands and am quite content to visit Whipsnade, or travel further to other Zoo, but no way would I pay Chessington's prices for what I consider to be a theme park with a few token animals (although, it might be more than that).
 
If they were to build a new zoo on the outskirts of London on the Farmland fields and meadows what would you do to protect the animal species already within these area's or doesn't it matter AGAIN that OUR wildlife will be destroyed never mind we can always look after the paying public and forget about everything else.
 
Shirokuma said:
Could you be a bit more constructive in your criticism? I'm genuinely curious about why you think that. Also, given its recent - and indeed older - history, what would you expect to be different?
Click to expand...

Interesting question.
If a historical zoo can only be judged as "outdated" then is there any room for historical zoos?
 
Zooplantman said:
Interesting question.
If a historical zoo can only be judged as "outdated" then is there any room for historical zoos?
Click to expand...

Quite simply put like that - answer no ! But i suppose its the definition of out dated and what do we expect when we go to the Zoo
A) lots of exhibits
or
B) less exhibits but better exhibits
 
littleRedPanda said:
but no way would I pay Chessington's prices for what I consider to be a theme park with a few token animals (although, it might be more than that).
Click to expand...

Chessington do operate a 'Zoo only' charge (they call it Zoo days) during the winter months when the Rides are closed(or they have done in recent years) for about £5. However its only open on weekends and periods like halfterm and the odd weekday so you have to check if it is open or not when you want to visit. A 'zoo only' ticket has been suggested on here for throughout the year but it seems too much administrative trouble for them to organise.
 
sooty mangabey said:
It is noticeable that those who are making the case for another London Zoo - and, of course, I would like it if there were a hundred new zoos across the UK - are not from the UK. I wonder whether they have visited London. It is not exactly a city in which space is plentiful. There are a number of large parks, but there is no chance at all that anything could be built on those. Which leaves the most extraordinarily densely crowded city, in which land prices are simply incredible.
Click to expand...

I am from outside the UK and know full well the complexities on the ground. Aside, I have been a Fellow in the past and personally ... I see reduction in species and diversity across most zoos, and in particular city zoos with constraints on space.

Having said that - it is only realistic to expect more diversity and more species if a welcome donation in the order of 50 - 60 MIO pounds be added to the coffers of ZSL for just the purpose of enhancement / expansion and Big Five / Big Six type exhibitry beyond the current boundaries of ZSL/Regent's Park property and that the great Royal Parks Comission and the British Crown finally do what is justified given ZSL's prominence in conservation research and ex situ work, thy will be done.

Perhaps you should re-consider your London votes ...
 
Shirokuma said:
Could you be a bit more constructive in your criticism? I'm genuinely curious about why you think that. Also, given its recent - and indeed older - history, what would you expect to be different?
Click to expand...

Certainly there are far fewer animals at Regents Park than what there were in the past, the same could also be said for Bristol, I can recall when they had elephant, giraffe, polar bear, white tiger etc.in their collection, just like London it has adapted over the years to house fewer animals in better accommodation, interesting that Bristol gets nowhere near the criticism on here for doing similar to London. And what about the other capital city zoo in Scotland?, it was, until recently praised to the hilt on here, funny all of its loyal supporters appear to have now gone silent!, unlike the management at Edinburgh I would say the management at London are currently doing a damn good job, slowly but surely building the place back up to where it belongs.
 
the whole issue with this is the expectations of what constitutes a 'good' zoo, and to me its certainly not any of the following;
1) footprint of the zoo
2) the presence of megafauna
3) diversity of the collection

all of which it has been suggested makes London outdated or lousy. I'd much rather London continue to cut its species list but display the species left in exciting, innovative and thought provoking ways. I dont want to see London zoo cram in rhino's, elephants, bears etc if they aren't exhibited in a positive way. The way zoos are perceived, rated and understood needs to change.

in other words, London zoo is a good zoo (especially with one of my favorite exhibits in the world BUGS) and London does not necessarily need another major zoo.
 
Animal Friendly said:
just like London it has adapted over the years to house fewer animals in better accommodation, interesting that Bristol gets nowhere near the criticism on here for doing similar to London.
Click to expand...

One important difference, of course, is that to my eyes Bristol has retained rather more diversity in the animal collection than has London - on a rather smaller site, it has a reptile house and insect house almost the equal of that found in London, arguably a better nocturnal house and certainly a better penguin area.

foz said:
I'd much rather London continue to cut its species list but display the species left in exciting, innovative and thought provoking ways. I dont want to see London zoo cram in rhino's, elephants, bears etc if they aren't exhibited in a positive way.
Click to expand...

One issue, of course, is that most of the diversity being lost is in the smaller and more unusual species, with the megafauna being retained.
 
I can see why people think Bristol is more successful small site zoo than London but according to Zootierliste Bristol have 230 species but London have significantly more at 524.

I would disagree that Bristol has 'certainly a better penguin area', I think that Penguin Beach at London Zoo is excellent (and although I often stick up for the zoo on here, that isn't my view of everything at the zoo) and is an extremely successful exhibit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top