I've only seen Alaska and Africa (not Asia) but generally it's very good (if very heavy on the fake rock), but the sea lion exhibit is probably the least effective area aesthetically - it drifts a little into Colchester-style mock-rock-as-wall-covering and Flinstones-style access doors!
The rest of Alaska is much better, as is Africa (although the colour of the rockwork there is perhaps a little garish).
From memory Asia has little fake rock.
I also dont see it as a funpark anymore than other places, and at least most of the animals have space to roam which cant be said of all zoos.
No, I'd certainly not call it a fun park. That said, this picture is definitely not the most attractive aspect, so if this was all you'd seen it'd be easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.
I'll certainly be back at some point to check Asia out.
Asia is worth the visit, I'd say the Orang indoors is as good as Chester's (if not better) and the outside is very spacious, but as both my visits have been in winter time I've no idea if they us it much.
Sorry to disagree (slightly). Whilst the Asia section is all very well done I think it is by far the least of the three parts of the zoo -it has too few species and rarities (though the Hanuman Langur are nice) compared with the other two sections. After viewing "Alaska" and "Africa" I found Asia a little underwhelming, it seemed to me that compromises on scale and scope might have been made due to funding issues at some point. Although I've seen enough of them elsewhere (everywhere?) I was surprised the section didn't include Tigers and/or Leopards which I'm sure the general visitor would appreciate.
The above said I'd not hesitate to recommend a visit to the place -a lot of animals (and quite a few rarities) all very well displayed.
You are correct about a lack of animals on display in Asia, but that could be due to the Orang area being so large that there was a lack of space for other species in the outdoors area, and or lack of money.
