I don't actually mind it though I know the Waterbus Ride drivers dislike it alot as I am sure SMR will agree if he had a chat to the operators. It will however I agree disturb the piece around the Coffee House but it will increase the zoo's profit by getting kids to play(I also thought of having a play as really I am just a big kid lol) and while they do that the parents will go grab a coffee/tea.
I wouldn't mind it so much if, as SMR has pointed out, it had educational value. Maybe instead of boats they could control remote-control 'whales' and 'dolphins,' and this way theuy could have 'obstacles' like fishing nets etc to teach about threats to the animals?
I am not a member, but I don't think members have a problem in the zoo moving forward, the problem lies in the fact that this isn't relevant to the zoo/animals at all. If the zoo continued to expand with new exhibits, and yes even entertaining (but educational) amusements, then I can't see how any members would have a problem.
In my opinion, they should have at least tried to theme it.
I think Chester members are generally progressive, it's hard not to be as it has always been the foundation of the zoo. There has been some negativity this year as (many) exhibits and horticulture have been lost and not immediately replaced, two areas I've certainly complained about, but in the main I find members generally embrace change, especially when those changes progresses the zoo without turning it into a fairground.
Also this should draw more visitors into that area and maybe spend more money in the cafe. Hence a win win situation for Chester (except for a few members).
I'm not sure "few" is an accurate description in this case because at the AGM the Jaguar Coffee House was cited as a particular success because, at least in a significant part, it had been embraced by the regular visitors and members. There was also discussion about how the zoo needs to retain some quieter, more relaxing areas as they recognise that there will always be a significant portion of visitors who don't have children and would like some respite of their own. If they draw noise and activities to every quiet corner, that would alienate many visitors in the same way having no play facilities would alienate many families.
In my opinion this is definitely a tacky addition because it looks and feels like a spur-of-the-moment bolt-on. The lack of integration and the standard of presentation are both completely out-of-place at Chester, whether or not one agrees on the need for generating extra income. Compare it to the new play area at the rear of the Acorn Pub for example, it was carefully planned, thoughtfully constructed and gives children a chance to play (free of charge) while only having a negligible impact on the area around it.
Uh, horrible thought, I suppose they could have put this in the QEII Silver Jubilee (sunken) garden. Perhaps we got off lightly.
I've only seen the photo's and will not see the addition itself until next summer. They are cheap, tacky and a terrible eyesore. Not something a zoo of Chester's reputation should be adding. The peace and quiet of that area was wonderful. It also aided in the viewing of the outdoor area of the Jaguar enclosure. It was nice to sit down in the late afternoon and have a relaxing cup of coffee.
Tuan, a tacky lake with a few radio controlled boats is not going to draw visitors to a zoo. The Aquarium tried the same idea a few years ago. In the 4 visits I have made to it, not one person has used it. New Tiger or Lion enclosures would draw hundreds of people in.
I'm not sure "few" is an accurate description in this case because at the AGM the Jaguar Coffee House was cited as a particular success because, at least in a significant part, it had been embraced by the regular visitors and members.
Tuan, a tacky lake with a few radio controlled boats is not going to draw visitors to a zoo. The Aquarium tried the same idea a few years ago. In the 4 visits I have made to it, not one person has used it. New Tiger or Lion enclosures would draw hundreds of people in.
Where did I say draw visitors to the zoo, I mentioned draw visitors into that area and help with return visits but not to draw extra punters to Chester Zoo.
Chester zoo relys on return visits, as a high percentage of their gate reciepts and little small things like these go a long way into the kids and some relieved parents at their few minutes break to make that return to the zoo. If the kids get bored and whinney they what parent in their right mind would take them back, I wouldn't why waste the money.
I raise this again but I would prefer this smaller less intrusive money raisers then say paying to feed the animals which is down right tacky and gives the wrong image to people.
Again whats everyones beef with the Big Cat enclosures? They are standing the test of time very well.
But that overlooks individual draw demographics as this particular café was obviously proving to be popular to a certain section. One could apply similar figures to the percentage of visitors who drink in the Acorn Pub or have a sit-down meal in Oakfield House (in both cases, a small percentage of the gate).
Thirty-five thousand members visiting an average of four times per year equates to something in the region of fourteen percent of the total annual visits. Add in all the repeat visitors who aren't members and the numbers could be quite noteworthy. It was the zoo's management that specifically brought up the success of the Jaguar Coffee House as being largely down to this segment of visitors, so they must have thought it significant.
I would like to add that zoos are ENTERTAINMENT, families go there for a great day out. very few people, apart from zoo nerds, will go to any zoo to see the 'tayra, sifaka and the ring tail mongoose' * . Attractions like this are part of families having a good day out and therefore (hopefully) returning. Zoos have to cater for the majority of their visitors, i.e. young families. However i dont agree this should be at the cost of conservation, but i dont think this attraction is at the cost of conservation. It might be nice to have an entertaining rest where conservation isn't shoved down your throats, (zoos can run the risk of preaching).
* totally random animals which i would make a special zoo visit for.
I think the discussion "What is the main purpose of a modern zoo?" is probably one of the most often debated issues on this forum.
Are Zoos = (just family-friendly) entertainment, as foz put it, or is a modern zoo more?
Heini Hediger already gave an answer to this more than 60 years ago.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heini_Hediger]Heini Hediger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Should a cultural center like an opera or museum be confined to being "(family-friendly) entertainment"? I think we can agree: it shouldn't. Why should modern zoos thus not also be considered equally important centers of culture? That might free them from the current status of only being mentioned as snide marginal notes in the kiddie sections of Loney Planet guidebooks, if at all...
The counterargument: how to run a costly business like a zoo in a hedonistic fun society?
Anyway, opinions are divided-not just on behalf of Chester's little boats, but about the importance of the entertainment aspect of and in zoos. We'll see...
And the debate is not new.
Zoos have become centers for conservation (if they have yet become that) only relatively recently. First they were collections to demonstrate national or personal power (when Hediger was a gleam in his great-grandfather's eye). Then they were entertainments - with a light educational veneer - for the middle class. Then entertainment for the general public. A century ago it was debated whether zoos ought to be places of serious study or public fun.
Perhaps it should be argued that zoos "should" figure out how to survive as educational/conservation facilities (few have, in fact few museums or operas have!), but history is not on the side of that argument.
And I'll make this point: can zoos succeed as conservation education facilities if the general public does not go to them? And can they survive?
This is not a comment on the boat thingy shown here at Chester one way or the other.
