Personally, I think both need a zoo. When it comes down to which I think needs it more, I have to go with Vegas, for multiple reasons. For starters, Austin is only an hour away from San Antonio. However, the biggest reason I believe Vegas does is because there is nothing to do there for the local population. At least that is what I have been told by a friend that grew up there. He said the only thing to do is really the strip and other casinos or it is at least all at casinos. In terms of family oriented things to do, dragging your kids to the Aquarium on the Vegas strip probably isn't high on your priority list. He said the people there also don't won't to deal with the crowds that are on the strip either. Obviously any attraction, whether local or for tourists, will attract crowds, but going to the strip to just go to the Aquarium is extra hectic because your dealing with a huge crowd just walking on the streets.
Other general comment about Austin, so there is no room in the city, which I get it happens, but why can't it be in a surrounding suburb where there is more land? Why does it specifically have to be in Austin versus just the metro area to make it work? I ask because I'm from Minnesota, and no Minneapolis does not have a zoo within its boundaries, but I wouldn't say it doesn't have a zoo because the Minnesota Zoo is only 30 minutes away. I guess I understand this question more as which area needs it more versus which city specifically.
Other general comment about Austin, so there is no room in the city, which I get it happens, but why can't it be in a surrounding suburb where there is more land? Why does it specifically have to be in Austin versus just the metro area to make it work? I ask because I'm from Minnesota, and no Minneapolis does not have a zoo within its boundaries, but I wouldn't say it doesn't have a zoo because the Minnesota Zoo is only 30 minutes away. I guess I understand this question more as which area needs it more versus which city specifically.
