Does London need a completely new zoo?

Arizona Docent said:
To add a new (related) discussion topic, how can densely urban zoos expand? Not just London Zoo, but any zoo in a large city with little open space?
Click to expand...

Back to this sub-topic. :) Most zoos waste incredible space on lawns, access roads etc. Often this is legacy of the zoo was a park with small animal cages 100 years ago and nobody ever thought about changing the general plan. When one adds area of all animal exhibits in a typical zoo, the result is just 25-30% or the zoo area.

It is possible to put grass lawns and trees inside animal exhibits as 'green islands'. Ponds can become animal pools or water moats. One can plan service area so that access roads and corridors are minimized. Avoid nonsense public plazas. Ornamental plantings, sculptures, theming - this all can go inside animal exhibits, eventually protected by hotwire or elevated. Hide night stalls and service buildings under the paddocks. Perhaps you shouldn't let a herd of buffalo on the roof, but small and medium-sized animals, birds, carnivores, smaller hoofstock etc. can run on the green roof of any building without major structural adjustments.

A leader is probably small zoo in Bremenhaven, Germany, which was redesigned. In Bremenhaven, the combined size of animal exhibits is bigger than the total zoo area. Eg. the aquarium and restrooms are under the rocks of polar bears. Hill-shaped nature of many exhibits betrays that service buildings and night stalls are below them. Zoo classroom is above restaurant, and visitor paths are often two-level - upper overlooks the exhibit, and lower underwater view of it.
 
Last edited:
Coming from a background / experience of a city zoo with extreme listed building syndrome, I can quite place the situation / challenge ZSL / Regent's Park finds itself in.

Posters may need reminding that there has been an inescapable trend in city zoos with limited space availability to cut down on once very diverse and rich species-wise collections. The ultimate lack is for sufficient space.

Secondly, I keep having to underline that this situation will only chance if the Royal Parks Commission and the British Crown and London City Council get their act in order for the national zoo that London inescapably is seen to be.

The frequent complaints about the Mappins will only go away if and when the average Londoner will rally behind its zoo and really invest on site into its renovation (if we would care and like to preserve zoo history / as in honor the listed building status ..) and rehabilitation (whether that involves renovating the skeleton structure or re-building from scratch is even to me).

The clamour for smaller species only in London Zoo is preposterous as we all know full well that the average zoo visitor will want to see the Big Five or whatever in larger mega vertebrates like lion, tiger, elephant, rhino, hippo, great apes, primates and similar bigger species. That ZSL/Regent's Park facility actually exhibits bugs, fish, reptiles and amphibians makes it a welcoming place for everyone. As such it plays a vital role in bringing the average visitor into contact with the richness of our Natural World. Is that not the primary task for a city zoo?

Finally, to compare a zoo like Jersey Zoo to London Zoo also does not win any favours with me. The two are incomparable not just by their physics and geography, but also as Jersey is greenfields where London Zoo has to battle multiple city interests in a Royal Parks arena ... and has quite a few listed buildings (where Jersey Zoo can more or less build anything as they like where they like ...). The philosophies and rationale behind establishing both zoos may not be all that different, but their look, outlook and prospects are totally different (while not diminishing each zoo's value to the UK zoo community and a wider international audience.


As to Whipsnade WAP: I cannot see it will ever be a viable alternative to those millions of visitors to London as a day trip to Whipsnade from the city is really a day trip to even get there ...

The humour of its predicament is / The travesty ... reality of the park is that at Whipsnade by putting more investment towards not just the mega vertebrates / Big Five / Big Ten / Big Fifteen and hoofstocks only, it will actually make it a more viable and attractive proposition for every average day visitor to Whipsnade. More indoor facilities would be welcome too. Perhaps they can finally invest in facilities like an Aquarium, a World of Darkness, a Amphibian / Reptile House and Tropical and Desert Halls (with an adequate display of different species) and also in general a good Bird House to rival those facilities in London.
 
Jurek7: without wishing to be nosy, may I ask where you come from? The reason for my question: while I - obviously - love the idea that a new zoo should be built, or, even, a new road or a new railway line to make an existing zoo more easily reachable - that is so far from being likely or possible in the UK as to be not even worth thinking about. However, there are parts of the world where such things can and could happen. Singapore has been cited above. The building of the enormous Tierpark Berlin in the 1950s is a clear example. Some other Eastern European areas, possibly.
 
Jurek7 said:
but seems somehow unachievable in London.
Click to expand...

Building a bike lane seems somehow unachievable in London. For various reasons which would take up enough material to write a book, major infrastructure projects in London are extremely difficult to get off the ground. Developments like the Olympics and crossrail are miraculous given the odds stacked against any radical change or infrastructural progress in this city (except for construction of skyscrapers and luxury flats of course).

This of course is just one reason why London Zoo has to work with what it's got.
 
Shirokuma said:
This of course is just one reason why London Zoo has to work with what it's got.
Click to expand...

Exactly. fit what it can in, sensitively, around its historic buildings, with rare, interesting animals and a few token megafauna. What doesnt fit goes to whipsnade.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
As to Whipsnade WAP: I cannot see it will ever be a viable alternative to those millions of visitors to London as a day trip to Whipsnade from the city is really a day trip to even get there ...
Click to expand...

You aren't too far off the mark there.;) I think it is actually easier to reach from the nearer parts of East Anglia than from London- one year it was listed as East Anglia's 'top attraction' despite being hardly in/on the very southernmost edge of, that enormous region.

However for Londoners, and particularly tourists to the capital I think its pretty much off their radar. For which reason I doubt perhaps that any large building projects such as you outline will take place there, they will remain focused at London Zoo.
 
The circumstances under which London would permit, let alone establish, a new zoo are unlikely to the point of impossibility. So, while I understand the sentiment of those starting the thread, the question is pretty irrelevant. Sure, specialist collections with less emotive species, namely aquariums, city farms, and maybe even tropical houses may appear in the city in years to come, but I would argue that the most likely addition would be if ZSL found itself in a position to resurrect plans for 'Biota!'. I would be surprised if there was now zero ambition to expand the living collection to a third site in order to create a new aquarium project.

Though on the outskirts, it should be remembered that Chessington is a London Zoo - it's based in a London borough and in Zone 6. Had Chessington continued to shrink the collection and become largely a theme park, it would be understandable that this collection might be overlooked, but they effectively brought rhino back to the city last year. The space made available has allowed none of the criticism ZSL would likely face. So I would also suggest there also isn't a need for another zoo.
 
Pertinax said:
You aren't too far off the mark there.;) I think it is actually easier to reach from the nearer parts of East Anglia than from London- one year it was listed as East Anglia's 'top attraction' despite being hardly in/on the very southernmost edge of, that enormous region.

However for Londoners, and particularly tourists to the capital I think its pretty much off their radar. For which reason I doubt perhaps that any large building projects such as you outline will take place there, they will remain focused at London Zoo.
Click to expand...

Whipsnade is more accessible from the South and East Midlands as well.

And one other factor which would stop it ever becoming a place suitable for a national zoo; its climate. Whipsnade, much as I love it, can be very bleak indeed. And that's just in the summer...:rolleyes:
 
The trouble with Whipsnade is that it isn’t that easy to get to unless you have a car – not impossible, of course, but not easy. One bus every two hours isn’t great, just upping it to one an hour would be a vast improvement. Even though Whipsnade is technically closer, it’s much easier (and probably slightly quicker) for me to get the train into London, then tube to Camden for ZSL London, than get the train to Luton then (depending on timing) either a bus to Whipsnade or a bus to Dunstable followed by a taxi, and that’s just to get there from mid-Beds. I doubt that any tourist, probably London’s main visitor base, would bother to attempt the journey unless they were a zoo-enthusiast or really wanted to see any of the species there.

From what others have been saying on this thread, Chessington is starting to sound like a very viable second zoo for London. It’s on the Oyster network, which few London-tourists stray from, it’s close to the station, and looking at their website they have a good collection (anyone know if they still have fossa?!). But, ask anyone what Chessington is and they’ll say ‘theme park’ first, not zoo (unless you ask any of us of course!). Any tourist in London that wants to see a zoo will still go to ZSL London.

However, I do wonder if the new train-franchise's plans to extend the Oyster network out to Luton Airport Parkway might make Whipsnade seem easier, or more 'attractive', as a destination to visit. Oyster-ing out to Luton Airport Parkway, then a better bus service to link the station to the zoo might work wonders and could make Whispnade a more viable 'second zoo' for London.
 
There is a very simple answer to all this. London and Whipsnade together ought to be managed as one zoo.

Whiosnade is a natural home for what ought to be one of the finest collections of large ungulates and large carnivores in Europe. But its climate and lack of cover make it a poor site to keep smaller tropical birds and mammals, and as a home to invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles London is surely the natural choice.
 
In this thread I have noticed two things. The first several people have assumed that people visiting London Zoo will be from within London. The second is whether London Zoo should be a National Zoo for the UK. If London Zoo is to be the latter it needs to be attracting visitors from other parts of the UK.

I live in Berkshire, so London Zoo should certainly an option for a day out for me, however I currently have no intention of going there. The problem is the high cost of trains (the only viable option for getting there) makes it a very expensive day out. The last time I went was four years ago and in my opinion what London has to offer doesn't justify the additional travelling cost of going there instead of Marwell, Cotswolds or even Whipsnade.

The first time I went to London Zoo was as a surprise treat for something like my 9th or 10th birthday in the late '80s. This was travelling from Exeter and back in a day. This does suggest that at the time it was the "National Zoo" that some people have mentioned. However, today, London would not be able to keep the range of animals it did back then on its current site in modern conditions.

In answer to the original question, if London Zoo just wants a visitor base from London itself, then I believe it is doing just fine. If however, it wants to attract visitors from other parts of the country the current site will not support the animal collection it would need to do that.
 
My Advise for ZSL; Dont build a new zoo, Get more land from Regents Park, And keep the worthy exhibits and demolish and rebuild everything else.
 
I live in bristol and I was taken to london zoo as an 14 yr old in 1999, only a couple of months before web of life opened (now bugs). While bugs is great, the old invertebrate house was a much more efficient design....just 2 long rows of glass tanks. If bugs had been designed in a similar fashion, ie 3 floors of side by side tanks, how many invertebrate species would zsl have held then? My point is with 36 acres, space for exhibits is at a premium, so building houses with several floors, or like the mappins, or underground housing is essential.

The other difference now compared to 1999 is that there are more notable wild animal parks around now competing for the national audience. I'm not sure that children in 2014 in the southwest or Midlands are as likely to go to zsl when twycross, wmsp, nazf, longleat, cwp, paradise, woburn are arguably as good or as well known. London zoo cant advertise itself with bears, elephants, rhinos or chimps anymore. It was one a famous zoo offering what no other collection could and as such captured the imaginations of children nationwide but I think that goal now is unrealistic. London zoo is now a tourist attraction and wildlife collection for the local London market, and now has to compete with the london aquarium, chessington, paradise and possibly aspinalls parks too. But even if zsl decides to just cater for the london market and tourists, 36 acres cluttered up with listed buildings and offices/labs is still unlikely to provide enough land for many notable exhibits or megafauna. Expansion into regents park, shedding the largely unusable north bank as recompense, building space efficient exhibits that pack a lot in is needed fairly desperately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top