The ground floor is fish and aquatic invertebrates (and the odd turtle), the first floor is for reptiles, the second floor is divided between amphibians and invertebrates (so the building as a whole is more terrarium than aquarium in many ways).
The ground floor is fish and aquatic invertebrates (and the odd turtle), the first floor is for reptiles, the second floor is divided between amphibians and invertebrates (so the building as a whole is more terrarium than aquarium in many ways).
The ground floor is fish and aquatic invertebrates (and the odd turtle), the first floor is for reptiles, the second floor is divided between amphibians and invertebrates (so the building as a whole is more terrarium than aquarium in many ways).
While the fish and reptile floors are very good, my favourite level is the top floor with its amphibian and invert rooms. There are some fantastic displays up there (photos to follow!).
The worst/best I've seen for one animal house taking over the day is the Terrarium at Wroclaw - so many reptiles and so many exhibits we had to take a break halfway round and go back later in the day to avoid reptile burnout!
Maguari (or anyone else who wants to get involved! ), do you think that the big terrariums/aquariums attached to certain zoos warrant an extra admission or availability seperate to the zoo?
I mean the cost of heating, lighting and in the case of aquaria, filtering/maintenance must be expensive and I personally think that a little extra towards something of this stature surely isn't amiss. On the other hand I feel it's unfair to charge people to visit typical attractions. The best example I can give for the latter is Congo Gorilla Forest or Jungle World at The Bronx or the Safari Experience at Port Lympne. I know that it all goes towards the zoo in question but I think it's a tad unfair to charge extra to see commonly held species that don't run up massive energy bills compared to these sort of exhibits... Or am I just a bit of a scrooge?
Maguari (or anyone else who wants to get involved! ), do you think that the big terrariums/aquariums attached to certain zoos warrant an extra admission or availability seperate to the zoo?
I mean the cost of heating, lighting and in the case of aquaria, filtering/maintenance must be expensive and I personally think that a little extra towards something of this stature surely isn't amiss. On the other hand I feel it's unfair to charge people to visit typical attractions. The best example I can give for the latter is Congo Gorilla Forest or Jungle World at The Bronx or the Safari Experience at Port Lympne. I know that it all goes towards the zoo in question but I think it's a tad unfair to charge extra to see commonly held species that don't run up massive energy bills compared to these sort of exhibits... Or am I just a bit of a scrooge?
Well, an interesting place to ask the question - I'm not sure if you're aware but Berlin's aquarium does command an extra cost.
In fact, it's more like the zoo and aquarium are two separate but adjacent attractions with a joint admission available; you can buy a zoo ticket, an aquarium ticket, or a combined ticket (and there's a direct way in to the aquarium from the zoo and vice versa). It works pretty well under that arrangement.
Otherwise, I'm not a fan of additional costs for animal exhibits - that's what you've paid the entrance fee for, I always think!
Berlin's Aquarium is sited on its perimeter, so it's capable of being open to the public without anyone needing to visit the Zoo proper. It would also mean that the Aquarium can stay open in the evening; whether that's the case I don't know.
Well, an interesting place to ask the question - I'm not sure if you're aware but Berlin's aquarium does command an extra cost.
In fact, it's more like the zoo and aquarium are two separate but adjacent attractions with a joint admission available; you can buy a zoo ticket, an aquarium ticket, or a combined ticket (and there's a direct way in to the aquarium from the zoo and vice versa). It works pretty well under that arrangement.
Otherwise, I'm not a fan of additional costs for animal exhibits - that's what you've paid the entrance fee for, I always think!
I was aware it does cost extra and there's the option of the joint ticket. Looking at the pictures the building does seem to be a zoo within itself with an impressive collection but is it a self-sustaining attraction? Would it still make the money if it wasn't attached to the zoo perimeter?
I wholeheartedly agree that extra costs on top of admission is a bit of a con, especially if you're in a family group and have to pay for two kids and two adults or similar. Thanks for the replies.
I was aware it does cost extra and there's the option of the joint ticket. Looking at the pictures the building does seem to be a zoo within itself with an impressive collection but is it a self-sustaining attraction? Would it still make the money if it wasn't attached to the zoo perimeter?
Maybe one of the German ZooChatters will be able to help, if it's a thought that's occured to you and also to me, a Brit who hasn't actually been, then maybe they've e-mailed and asked...
