ZSL London Zoo London Zoo discussion thread

Cat-Man said:
Why was the Whipsnade enclosure such an improvement for their welfare?
Click to expand...

Much more space, improved housing. Less intrusive viewing, more spaces to hide. Better frames, more toys and enrichment. A second outdoor space more off view for visitors where Lanka in particular could spend her time as she couldn’t be mixed with the others and had a lot of stress sort of behaviour. The enclosure was a conversion to start with but the planting and areas grew and weathered over time. It’s also a quieter area of the zoo by the nature of being the ‘far side’ near the drive through exit.
 
Last edited:
Fallax said:
This seems a little harsh to me, top 10 I can understand but top 20? What 20 zoos would you say are better?
Click to expand...

Other zoochatters beat me to that. There was a number of threads in this forum about top zoos, top exhibits etc., and London is always out or far down in rankings. Even if with some wishful thinking one says that London zoo is the 15th best zoo in the country, it is remains a third-league zoo which wasted its history and enormous potential.

London Zoo has enormous potential because of potential donors nearby in the London Financial City, which very few zoos in the world have. It should have been full of world-class exhibits and animals like Zurich Zoo.

cerperal said:
And when was Colchester constructed.
Click to expand...

This discussion seems to suffer from comparing only with nearby English zoos, while most people know other city zoos abroad. That is why only somebody with an experience from abroad can revitalize this institution.

It would be interesting to compare today London Zoo against good historic city zoos abroad: Basel, Antwerp, Vienna, Cologne, Leipzig, Berlin zoo, Zurich, Paris zoos, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, some Czech zoos and so on. One could compare size, historic buildings, large and smaller animals and exhibits. It might be a good thread for Zoochat. It should show opportunities for London.

cerperal said:
because they don't house elephants (eg) at London is not a fair comparison
Click to expand...

It is not about one species or exhibit. It is about the absence of the most and mediocre average.

Other city zoos usually set space for some very large animals. Of smaller animals, London zoo still could have a bear species, sealions, other apes besides gorillas, further smaller primates, mid-sized cats, some smaller active herding ungulate like a mountain goat species or sitatunga, and a big aquarium, reptile and small mammal buildings.

White Elephant House could be readily converted for smaller animals, possibly with changing moats to glass walls or net aviaries. The Lubetkin Pool could be a children play area. Or become enclosed inside an aviary or an enclosure. It might be a decent decoration or a climbing structure.

Jennings said:
Re: Regent's Park's listed buildings, it is worth pointing out that successive Mayors of London have allowed the demolition of multiple listed or historic buildings within London
Click to expand...

If a building allegedly poses life hazard from chunks of concrete falling on people's heads, like Mappin / aquarium, this is a really strong argument to pull down a historic structure. Especially that this huge steel and concrete structure was build without regard how it would be repaired.

This is the question how actively London zoo tries to change?
 
Jurek7 said:
London Zoo has enormous potential because of potential donors nearby in the London Financial City, which very few zoos in the world have. It should have been full of world-class exhibits and animals like Zurich Zoo.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think the City cares? Bankers aren’t spending their free time looking at zebras.
 
equidae said:
Do you seriously think the City cares? Bankers aren’t spending their free time looking at zebras.
Click to expand...

Yes. It’s the wealthiest concentration of individuals and organisations in Europe, and the second largest anywhere in the world. These people and organisations make significant contributions to charities, arts and culture, even if you could cynically argue there’s a benefit to them. I don’t know if ZSL take advantage of that particular fundraising potential but if they don’t, they certainly should.
 
Cat-Man said:
Yes. It’s the wealthiest concentration of individuals and organisations in Europe, and the second largest anywhere in the world. These people and organisations make significant contributions to charities, arts and culture, even if you could cynically argue there’s a benefit to them. I don’t know if ZSL take advantage of that particular fundraising potential but if they don’t, they certainly should.
Click to expand...

I remember shortly before the pandemic, staff at London Zoo were asked to keep an eye out for celebrities (who were visiting the zoo, quietly, with their families) and report their whereabouts so that the fundraising department could “pop over and have a chat [with them]”... I would be very surprised if they hadn’t proactively approached City firms, put it that way! :D

I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and appreciate the many posters contributing their recollections of ZSL’s “glory days”. Sadly, my perception of the zoo is that it’s simply not as agile as it needs to be in order to compete with other collections; it always feels like it’s dragging a ten-tonne weight behind it, as if everything it does now is a monumental effort.

(To be fair, it does seem to have had an especially bad run of it when it comes to “scandals” in the national press. I don’t think it ever properly recovered from the furore surrounding the late-night openings, or the highly-publicised death of Melati the Sumatran tigress, and it definitely seems to have resulted in the zoo being more… “risk-averse” isn’t the right term, but perhaps more headshy when it comes to making decisions, which really ties back into the lack of agility I mentioned earlier)
 
Last edited:
Tetradactyla said:
I remember shortly before the pandemic, staff at London Zoo were asked to keep an eye out for celebrities (who were visiting the zoo, quietly, with their families) and report their whereabouts so that the fundraising department could “pop over and have a chat [with them]”... I would be very surprised if they hadn’t proactively approached City firms, put it that way!
Click to expand...

Tbf, this isn't the worst idea as fundraising goes. See the rich folk who patron your zoo and see if they'll donate
 
Tetradactyla said:
I remember shortly before the pandemic, staff at London Zoo were asked to keep an eye out for celebrities (who were visiting the zoo, quietly, with their families) and report their whereabouts so that the fundraising department could “pop over and have a chat [with them]”... I would be very surprised if they hadn’t proactively approached City firms, put it that way! :D

I’ve been following this discussion with interest, and appreciate the many posters contributing their recollections of ZSL’s “glory days”. Sadly, my perception of the zoo is that it’s simply not as agile as it needs to be in order to compete with other collections; it always feels like it’s dragging a ten-tonne weight behind it, as if everything it does now is a monumental effort.

(To be fair, it does seem to have had an especially bad run of it when it comes to “scandals” in the national press. I don’t think it ever properly recovered from the furore surrounding the late-night openings, or the highly-publicised death of Melati the Sumatran tigress, and it definitely seems to have resulted in the zoo being more… “risk-averse” isn’t the right term, but perhaps more headshy when it comes to making decisions, which really ties back into the lack of agility I mentioned earlier)
Click to expand...

What was the scandal around late right openings?
 
Jurek7 said:
Other zoochatters beat me to that. There was a number of threads in this forum about top zoos, top exhibits etc., and London is always out or far down in rankings. Even if with some wishful thinking one says that London zoo is the 15th best zoo in the country, it is remains a third-league zoo which wasted its history and enormous potential.

London Zoo has enormous potential because of potential donors nearby in the London Financial City, which very few zoos in the world have. It should have been full of world-class exhibits and animals like Zurich Zoo.



This discussion seems to suffer from comparing only with nearby English zoos, while most people know other city zoos abroad. That is why only somebody with an experience from abroad can revitalize this institution.

It would be interesting to compare today London Zoo against good historic city zoos abroad: Basel, Antwerp, Vienna, Cologne, Leipzig, Berlin zoo, Zurich, Paris zoos, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, some Czech zoos and so on. One could compare size, historic buildings, large and smaller animals and exhibits. It might be a good thread for Zoochat. It should show opportunities for London.



It is not about one species or exhibit. It is about the absence of the most and mediocre average.

Other city zoos usually set space for some very large animals. Of smaller animals, London zoo still could have a bear species, sealions, other apes besides gorillas, further smaller primates, mid-sized cats, some smaller active herding ungulate like a mountain goat species or sitatunga, and a big aquarium, reptile and small mammal buildings.

White Elephant House could be readily converted for smaller animals, possibly with changing moats to glass walls or net aviaries. The Lubetkin Pool could be a children play area. Or become enclosed inside an aviary or an enclosure. It might be a decent decoration or a climbing structure.



If a building allegedly poses life hazard from chunks of concrete falling on people's heads, like Mappin / aquarium, this is a really strong argument to pull down a historic structure. Especially that this huge steel and concrete structure was build without regard how it would be repaired.

This is the question how actively London zoo tries to change?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes and yes. So sad I could only give you one like.
 
equidae said:
Do you seriously think the City cares? Bankers aren’t spending their free time looking at zebras.
Click to expand...

The new bird house in Basel was for a very large part paid for by Roche (20 million chf, which is nearly 18 million gbp), one of the pharmaceutical companies that call Basel home.

Another example is Artis new lion enclosure that was financed by local philanthropists. Once news emerged that the lions were to be sent away, funds for a new enclosure were found, which means they are now staying.

So there are possibilities if a zoo can reach out to the right people with the right story. Given the rich history of the London Zoo the right people must almost certainly exist.
 
Jennings said:
It's worth noting that London Zoo has received large donations from unlikely sources before. It was saved from closure in 1992 by a donation from the Emir of Kuwait in thanks for the UK's involvement in the Gulf War. Emir of Kuwait offers $1.8 million to London Zoo - UPI Archives
Click to expand...
Three years later the zoo received another million from Dr Swarj Paul in memory of his daughter, who loved the zoo, and sadly passed away aged 4.

It was almost entirely spent on domestics (hence why the signs near the Bactrian Camels and Patagonian Conures read 'Ambika Paul Children's Zoo'), much of which doesn't even exist anymore due to the construction of Animal Adventure, I believe.

I don't think there have been any donations of the same magnitude this century, however.
 
Kalaw said:
Three years later the zoo received another million from Dr Swarj Paul in memory of his daughter, who loved the zoo, and sadly passed away aged 4.

It was almost entirely spent on domestics (hence why the signs near the Bactrian Camels and Patagonian Conures read 'Ambika Paul Children's Zoo'), much of which doesn't even exist anymore due to the construction of Animal Adventure, I believe.

I don't think there have been any donations of the same magnitude this century, however.
Click to expand...

That seems like poor management of funds. No wonder they haven't had any this century!

Prochilodus246 said:
I believe there was less footfall due to welfare concerns of keeping larger mammals such as the elephants in a small city zoo setting.
Click to expand...

Interesting. They also lost their Giant Pandas and government funding during this time. But the Elephants remained til the 00s!
 
Cat-Man said:
Why was London in such a difficult financial situation in the early 90s?
Click to expand...

The government used to give the zoo £1 million a year but decided to give it a one-off funding of £10 million and then stop funding it. The zoo spent the money and the government refused to give any more.
 
My dream for London is for them to gain a large number of Ungulates like what they had back in the 80s but sadly it will never happen again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top