Damn it... yes... perhaps, maybe... but a lot of them are, as well, brilliant examples of the architecture of their time! Check out my commentary on that damned penguine pool!
Actually, I even like this 1970 piece of architecture! I know that is was a totally misguided hell hole for the elephants to live in! I am glad it it no longer used as an elephant´s house. But from a strictly architectural point of view I can not help but to appreiciate it.
Do you want to see ancient yet historic architecture when you visit a zoo, or do you want to see animals in spacious, naturalistic environments? The Mappin Terraces, the Casson Pavilion and half a dozen other architectural nightmares still call London Zoo home, and while some have been successfully renovated many others are gray, faceless, dull, sterile, barren blobs on the zoological landscape.
Both, ideally. So I'm happy for buildings like this to stand. It's perfectly fine for the animals it holds (there are also a pile of small aviaries and small mammal enclosures inside, as well as an exhibition on the work of the zoo) and, whatever you think of its appearance, it IS a great example of its style of architecture (which is what Architectural Listing is all about preserving).
Vienna Zoo is a great example of how to re-use old buildings as modern enclosures. London's slowly moving in the right direction.
Though I'd question whether an exhibit needs to be naturalistic to be a good enclosure (debate for another time and place!).
i totaly agree maguari.
the problem, if it is one is that unlike alot of other zoo, london zoo holds alot of historic value and to be tearing it all down would be a crime. shame some people cant see that.
