What is this supposed to even mean?
Zoos with many ABC species, essentially.
What is this supposed to even mean?
But what do the two parts of the sentence have to do with one another? Are you saying that a zoo "with many ABC species" is automatically great, except when it's San Diego?Zoos with many ABC species, essentially.
That’s got nothing to do with being “metropolitan” (that is, of a large city).Zoos with many ABC species, essentially.
But what do the two parts of the sentence have to do with one another? Are you saying that a zoo "with many ABC species" is automatically great, except when it's San Diego?
That’s got nothing to do with being “metropolitan” (that is, of a large city).
So, your beef with San Diego is that other zoos are less able to develop? Hmmmm..... I just think San Diego is bad at pulling this off because of how it seems to have limitless room for expansion while other zoos are struggling to even survive.
.
....though no less of a leap than the opinion sometimes held on here that San Diego is automatically great, because it is San Diego.
I think TLD's post would have been better read as "the opinion sometimes held on here that San Diego is automatically the greatest, because it is San Diego" as that was the basic sentiment put across by its supporters in the discussion to which he referred, rather than it just being "great".But San Diego is great! One of the few zoos that can satisfy nerds and muggles alike. The description of it as a “pit”, somewhere above, is baffling!
The description of it as a “pit”, somewhere above, is baffling!
I think TLD's post would have been better read as "the opinion sometimes held on here that San Diego is automatically the greatest, because it is San Diego" as that was the basic sentiment put across by its supporters in the discussion to which he referred, rather than it just being "great".
The most overrated zoo for me would probably have to be the Smithsonian National Zoo. Asia Trail is excellent, there are some notable rarities, the Think Tank is pretty creative, and there has been some notable conservation successes. However, when I went about a decade ago, there were some areas needing improvement, coming across several empty exhibits was unfortunate, and the big hill was a pain (can't do much about that though). To be fair, most of my opinions on this Zoo were perhaps a case of bad luck and/or timing, and the additions since my tour, Elephant Trails and American Trail, do look impressive. I do wish to give Smithsonian another chance at some point in the future.
Where's that fact from? Given 30 million foreign tourists (ignoring UK ones) are supposed to visit London each year that'd yield almost 1.9 million visitors a year. I'm sure the zoo's total visitor numbers are considerably less than that.
How did you work that one out?I believe that last year 17 million visited, and London zoo therefore had an attendance of 1.1 million.
Baffling to me too!Even before the leaps in logic which followed.
Yes, this was indeed my intended interpretationalthough I think my original wording is valid too - the reason a world-famous collection is great isn't the mere fact that it is world-famous.
I wouldn't say San Diego is "disorganized " it's just organized differently compared to most zoos. Most zoos are organized taxonomically or geographically, whereas San Diego is a big mix of the two, along with some, let's just say unique ways of organizing a collection (cough, cough Elephant Odyssey). And I really don't see how having lots of money is a complaint against the zoo, surely it's a good thing that San Diego invests a lot of money into improving exhibits?I'll do admit. I just think San Diego is bad at pulling this off because of its disorganization and how it seems to have limitless room for expansion while other zoos are struggling to even survive.
I believe that last year 17 million visited, and London zoo therefore had an attendance of 1.1 million.