Major cities WITHOUT zoos
- Thread starter kiang
- Start date
Yes, plenty of cities in the USA could use zoos. It seems Vegas would be a great candidate seeing as how it's a tourist destination. If the import requirements weren't so strict, Kahalui on Maui would be a great location for a zoo.
A similar argument could be made for Lexington, in addition to Louisville being fairly close.
As well as Austin.
Bilbao could do with a zoo although Cabarceno is only an hour or so away
I dont think the entirity of the Basque region has a zoo
I dont think the entirity of the Basque region has a zoo
Geneva had a zoo from 1935 to 1940 but it closed down because of bankruptcy and Lausanne had a reptile zoo that closed down this year but will be re-opened on a new location next year
Apologies for any repetition.
There is a zoo in Grandby, Que., but it's about sixty miles from Montreal. The Vancouver Zoo is about thirty-five miles from Vancouver and it's not a very good zoo anyway. There was a small one in town, in Stanley Park, but my recollection is that it wasn't much of a zoo. Spokane's metropolitan population is over half a million and they no longer have a zoo. The Walk in the Wild Zoo was closed some years ago, apparently due to financial and public relations problems.
Ramat Gan is in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and I think it can qualify as Tel Aviv's zoo. I saw the old one in downtown Tel Aviv a number of times; nice little zoo, as I recall, but a bit cramped and small.
There is a zoo in Grandby, Que., but it's about sixty miles from Montreal. The Vancouver Zoo is about thirty-five miles from Vancouver and it's not a very good zoo anyway. There was a small one in town, in Stanley Park, but my recollection is that it wasn't much of a zoo. Spokane's metropolitan population is over half a million and they no longer have a zoo. The Walk in the Wild Zoo was closed some years ago, apparently due to financial and public relations problems.
Ramat Gan is in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and I think it can qualify as Tel Aviv's zoo. I saw the old one in downtown Tel Aviv a number of times; nice little zoo, as I recall, but a bit cramped and small.
Zygodactyl
Well-Known Member
Austin at this point is much more than a university city. And Abilene and Waco, with much smaller populations, have pretty good AZA zoos from what I've read.
On the other hand, I think that there's something about having multiple small zoos which inhibits the development of a major zoo. I'm originally from Western Massachusetts, most of which is ostensibly part of the Springfield Metropolitan Area of 600k people. Western Mass has at least three minor zoos: the ZAA Zoo in Forest Park and the unaccredited Lupa Zoo and Christenson Zoo. The Lupa Zoo has an impressive variety of animals for such a small zoo; the Look Park Zoo has less variety but a nicer layout, and the Christenson Zoo basically a petting zoo that got a few animals unsuitable for petting.
Austin likewise has two apparently mediocre zoos (I've never been to either, though now that I know the CoT Zoo has falanoka and fossa I plan to visit it), which may satisfy the needs of parents who just want to take their kids to see animals.
Admittedly, Albany seems to be missing any zoo despite having a million people in its metro area, and like Austin has an economy still largely driven by education and government, so perhaps there's something to the "people here just don't care" theory.
@Zygodactyl : I've never been to Austin myself (hope to one day), but I agree that its quite large enough to support a major zoo. There is the complicating factor of the San Antonio Zoo only being an hour away, but I'm not sure what the effect would be on it if Austin were to get its own large zoo. Additionally, college cities/towns wouldn't be a terrible choice for zoos; all of the people who work and live there with their families could provide the local visitor base for it.
In regards to the "people just don't care" theory: I think that zoos can be successful wherever they are, but that it ultimately depends on how much attention and investment they are given. Omaha is not a particularly large city or popular tourist destination, yet it has one of the most famous zoos on the continent; in fact, it is the city's biggest tourist draw and so the city and its people have significant reason to keep it afloat. Meanwhile, zoos in major cities like Boston and San Francisco struggle because the public investment, both from the city and the citizens, is not comparatively high. A zoo could be successful in Albany or Austin, but only if the public and the city is willing to invest in it, prioritize it, and showcase it.
In regards to the "people just don't care" theory: I think that zoos can be successful wherever they are, but that it ultimately depends on how much attention and investment they are given. Omaha is not a particularly large city or popular tourist destination, yet it has one of the most famous zoos on the continent; in fact, it is the city's biggest tourist draw and so the city and its people have significant reason to keep it afloat. Meanwhile, zoos in major cities like Boston and San Francisco struggle because the public investment, both from the city and the citizens, is not comparatively high. A zoo could be successful in Albany or Austin, but only if the public and the city is willing to invest in it, prioritize it, and showcase it.
Zygodactyl
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I have never been to the Boston Zoo. The Boston Aquarium, absolutely, but my parents took us to Look Park and Forest Park frequently, and to the Bronx Zoo every year or two. I wonder if the easy train access from Albany to NYC may play a role in NYC not developing a zoo. (One thing I really miss in Texas is passenger rail as a viable means of intercity transit.)
It's probably not actually an hour and a quarter to San Antonio if you try to go when the zoo is open. Getting from central Austin to downtown San Antonio takes about an hour and forty minutes if you don't try to leave Austin in Rush Hour; I imagine the zoo would be similar. Also, most of Austin's suburbs are to the north of Austin (it's weird that twenty-five minutes minutes south of downtown you see farms, but an hour north you're still getting big box stores), like we're trying to grow away from San Antonio (because Waco is so much better).
Of course, land near Austin is increasingly expensive, which I imagine is why both of Austin's zoos are in the middle of nowhere. I think that the optimal sites for a zoo would between Austin and Round Rock, on the southern outskirts of Austin, or near the junction of the toll road and another major road, in that order. But I imagine all of these would be rather expensive places to buy land.
It's probably not actually an hour and a quarter to San Antonio if you try to go when the zoo is open. Getting from central Austin to downtown San Antonio takes about an hour and forty minutes if you don't try to leave Austin in Rush Hour; I imagine the zoo would be similar. Also, most of Austin's suburbs are to the north of Austin (it's weird that twenty-five minutes minutes south of downtown you see farms, but an hour north you're still getting big box stores), like we're trying to grow away from San Antonio (because Waco is so much better).
Of course, land near Austin is increasingly expensive, which I imagine is why both of Austin's zoos are in the middle of nowhere. I think that the optimal sites for a zoo would between Austin and Round Rock, on the southern outskirts of Austin, or near the junction of the toll road and another major road, in that order. But I imagine all of these would be rather expensive places to buy land.
Last edited:
I didn't realize the North Carolina Zoo was the only one in the state. It seems like it could maybe support another zoo or two. Is South Carolina the same?
The Greensboro area actually does have a zoo, in the form of Greensboro Science Center, which is a zoo/aquarium/museum.
North Carolina is odd in that it has one “state” zoo, located in a rural area somewhat equidistant from the largest cities, rather than one in each. My guess is that this is because North Carolina cities have only grown to their present size recently (post-WWII) which predates when most major zoos opened in the US.
South Carolina has three major urban areas. Columbia and Greenville both have zoos, and Charleston has something called “Brookgreen Gardens”, which seems like it might be some kind of zoo but is definitely small. They also have an aquarium, but Charleston could definitely support a decently-sized zoo of its own, especially with its climate and tourist numbers.
Interesting. I didn't know that much about North Carolina. The North Carolina Zoo looks interesting but it does seem odd that is the only one in that state.