littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye out for that
Edit:
Actually, I've just found the dates and prices - book certain dates for £9 or open date for £15 which looks reasonable.
Does London need a completely new zoo?
- Thread starter Jurek7
- Start date
Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye out for that
Edit:
Actually, I've just found the dates and prices - book certain dates for £9 or open date for £15 which looks reasonable.
Bristol is significantly smaller than London, as I said - 10 acres to ZSL's 35 acres. As such, that works out as an average of 23 species per acre at Bristol and 15 species at London.
Penguin Beach *is* good, certainly - but the combined fur-seal and penguin area at Bristol is much better to my eyes.
Animal Friendly
Well-Known Member
Bristol Zoo has twelve acres, London has 36.
Fair enough
which makes the ratio for Bristol 19 taxa per acre to the 14.5 taxa per acre at London.I suspect the figure for both collections is rather incorrect, mind you, as the ongoing project over on ZTL to add all fish taxa is incomplete.
It really makes no difference how many species London or Bristol have per acre! Most of both zoos high number of species are down to fish & invertebrates, I wouldn't say a high number of these makes either zoo better than one with no bug house or aquarium, therefore fewer species overall.
Ignore the many domestic mammals at London and offshow ones and Bristol probably wouldn't be too far behind on the mammal count I suspect.
Ignore the many domestic mammals at London and offshow ones and Bristol probably wouldn't be too far behind on the mammal count I suspect.
Last edited:
As I noted before, Zootierliste does not list all fish groups as yet, and does not list inverts at all - so those totals are primarily comprised of reptile, mammal and bird taxa anyhow
In any case, this is getting off the point in hand - which is that comparatively speaking I think Bristol makes much better use of the small amount of land they have as opposed to London, both in terms of enclosure quality and diversity of taxa shown.
In any case, this is getting off the point in hand - which is that comparatively speaking I think Bristol makes much better use of the small amount of land they have as opposed to London, both in terms of enclosure quality and diversity of taxa shown.
Bristol's buildings are- comparatively speaking- on a smaller scale than London's too. They aren't quite so hamstrung with listed/conserved status architecture on the same scale as London either and the older buildings have been modified successfully for the most part.
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
Bristol doesn't have the underused space that London has, nor is quite so much space given over to offices. I wonder if, in time, what offices they do require will go to Hollywood Towers?
And for the record, I also like London's penguin exhibit. I just wish that it hadn't necessitated the removal of the old Parrot House, the only building that could have been seen five years ago that had also appeared in a photo of Jumbo!
Very interesting thread. My thoughts on points raised:
London probably doesn't need another zoo, just needs to make better use of the Regent's Park site. Greater London real estate is ridiculously expensive and no council is going to allow a conversion of green space. Outside the M25 corridor is the only area of expansion and this is already covered by other collections. Do (non-zoo obsessed) visitors to London look at Whipsnade as a viable day out? Not sure they do.
Regent's Park's difficulties are the historical buildings which can make merging with modern exhibits difficult... but not impossible. I haven't seen the latest version of the Mappins but the space sounds wasted. The same goes the use of the Casson building and the Snowdon aviary. Admittedly you would have to throw a considerable amount of cash at them to make it look good/work. Concentrating the collection on smaller species around several large species is probably the way London needs to go in order to maximise the space, in the same way should/does Bristol.
As a side note I have some criticisms of the use of space at Bristol, particularly in the area of the old monkey temple. Also for all the lauding by fellow ZooChatters of the Noc House and Bug House, I found both to be a bit run-down and need of an overhaul on my last visit.
Jersey also springs to mind regarding comparison of useable space, although I don't know whether it is bigger/smaller. But the fact is that the biggest species at Jersey for the last decade has only been gorillas, orangs and spec bears. Jersey (for all its faults) feels like it has taken some of the mantle away from what London was 'trying' to evolve into.
London probably doesn't need another zoo, just needs to make better use of the Regent's Park site. Greater London real estate is ridiculously expensive and no council is going to allow a conversion of green space. Outside the M25 corridor is the only area of expansion and this is already covered by other collections. Do (non-zoo obsessed) visitors to London look at Whipsnade as a viable day out? Not sure they do.
Regent's Park's difficulties are the historical buildings which can make merging with modern exhibits difficult... but not impossible. I haven't seen the latest version of the Mappins but the space sounds wasted. The same goes the use of the Casson building and the Snowdon aviary. Admittedly you would have to throw a considerable amount of cash at them to make it look good/work. Concentrating the collection on smaller species around several large species is probably the way London needs to go in order to maximise the space, in the same way should/does Bristol.
As a side note I have some criticisms of the use of space at Bristol, particularly in the area of the old monkey temple. Also for all the lauding by fellow ZooChatters of the Noc House and Bug House, I found both to be a bit run-down and need of an overhaul on my last visit.
Jersey also springs to mind regarding comparison of useable space, although I don't know whether it is bigger/smaller. But the fact is that the biggest species at Jersey for the last decade has only been gorillas, orangs and spec bears. Jersey (for all its faults) feels like it has taken some of the mantle away from what London was 'trying' to evolve into.
I've often wondered about this and where Whipsnade's visitors generally come from.
I know it's a little off-thread but does anyone know if there's any official data on this*?
*is this the most boring question ever to appear on ZooChat? Whatever happened to me? I was such a "young Turk".
You forget the Aquariums, where London wins hands down, and the birds where the Bristol collection is uniquely repetitive (they must be in danger of running out of 'P's and 'a's for all those labels saying Palawan Peacock Pheasant). I also think that you underestimate London's reptiles and penguins. I do agree about the smaller species, which would seem to be particularly important in smaller zoos.
Alan
Yes, the Aquarium at London does indeed win hands down, despite showing its age a little now
as for the reptile house at London, I did say that Bristol was almost equal to it, which rather implies I acknowledge London's is better, hehe.
London can be pretty repetitive too. There were 5 cages with Tawny Frogmouth & at least 3 each for Hawk owl & white faced Scops owl, all on the North bank last time I looked!
The Monkey Temple at Bristol is the one area that doesn't lend itself easily into conversion for something else.
Apart from, in the past, Lions, Tapirs, and for a while, some male Prezwalski Horses, the species you list have always been pretty much the largest they have at Jersey.
Whipsnade's visitor base is predominantly ZSL members and recurring visitors from the surrounding area. What also works against it is it's location-it's not an all-year/all-weather zoo, unlike London.
Significant strides are being made to rectify these issues, but these things cost money! Once again, these issues highlight Whipsnade's potential, and what it should/could become.
Personally I think the Reptile house and aquarium are both outdated and I would actually question the aquarium at all. The reptile house is always busy I suppose because of the chance to get close to large venomous snakes and I think london should somehow improve that exhibit.
The aquarium is the only thing that's preventing the Mappins from collapsing!
I wonder how to certify Whipsnade location
The only solution would be to develop a road and train line specially for visitors. This would be possible in many cities which purposefully develop tourist potential of their attractions, but seems somehow unachievable in London."Solving issues of distance and not all-year" would be precisely a new zoo somehow intermediate to London Zoo and Whipsnade in character. Closer with easy access by city transport, with all-year animal houses but with enough space to show big mammals and large herds.
I think most people agree that there is big public interest to see diverse collection of large animals in London.
And most people agree that safari park outside the city doesn't fill this demand. Also, this role is not filled by places not presenting big animals: aquariums, sealifes, petting zoos and small animals like biotas etc.
I would argue that a third zoo is better that trying fight unsolvable issues of space in London Zoo or distance to Whipsnade. Successful example of a crowded city which has good zoos is Singapore, which is a city much more modern and froward looking than London. They have 3 zoos literary at the same public square: Zoo, River Safari and Night Safari. City of Singapore did not seek to extend the Zoo into extra space, which would be the only way a Londoner can think about things. It developed three separate attractions each with different flavor. It doesn't mind that many animal species overlap. And can charge 3 times for tickets. Singapore also has 2 aquariums, a bird park and perhaps some smaller animal attractions, which are again not seen as a competition to zoos.
I think zoos preserve and extend the value of green spaces in the city, rather than 'destroy few existing green spaces'. Zoo is not factory halls! Zoos certainly increase recreational potential of urban green spaces. They also preserve most of the area vegetated and not developed, and typically extend it by planting trees and other vegetation. London Zoo is here especially good example, for it has far more trees and biodiversity than grass lawns of the surrounding park.
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
I have been to London and London Zoo, and think that it is an amazing zoo in many ways, but obviously needs a lot of work. Which does appear to be happening, although not at the pace that many would like. As others have said, the zoo needs to maximise its use of space before trying to expand into Regent's Park, but without losing to much of its existing open areas. Moving the offices/labs to Whipsnade is an interesting idea, but how much space would that actually free up? The cost of building a new facility out there would be in the tens of millions of pounds, and I think it would probably be more beneficial to keep it within the city if not the zoo.
In terms of species that are a waste of space (paraphrasing a previous post), I must say I find this a totally bizarre concept. Are you saying London should get rid of all the less active animals, and just keep small-clawed otters, ring-tailed lemurs and meerkats? Isn't this the zoo management concept loathed by every ZooChatter? While some species may not be suited, especially anoa, they should be able to source more active individuals of other species, e.g. tapir, if the current animals are not showing particularly well. And Galapagos Tortoises are a major attraction, I would think they should be held on to very tightly!
In terms of species that are a waste of space (paraphrasing a previous post), I must say I find this a totally bizarre concept. Are you saying London should get rid of all the less active animals, and just keep small-clawed otters, ring-tailed lemurs and meerkats? Isn't this the zoo management concept loathed by every ZooChatter? While some species may not be suited, especially anoa, they should be able to source more active individuals of other species, e.g. tapir, if the current animals are not showing particularly well. And Galapagos Tortoises are a major attraction, I would think they should be held on to very tightly!