A couple of extra things to consider:
While the western Sydney site was certainly the initial site chosen for a satellite zoo [and still the best in my opinion] politics influenced the change to Dubbo. The local, long-time State member for the area was retiring and called in a few political favours to have the zoo developed in his electorate. The new Sydney Zoo will capitalise on that change of decision.
With regard to the downsizing of animal collections in favour of human activities there are a number of factors at play.
Firstly, the considerable influence that marketing people have over some zoo managements.
Thus, we have zoo avian collections minimised because "birds don't sell". If the birds are big and gaudy or can be free flown then they have a chance. But the wonderful plethora of bird species that places like Taronga, Currumbin, Healesville etc used to be noted for have now been considerably reduced - and with them the cohort of skilled keepers that used to sustain them.
Secondly, like so many other providers, zoos have discovered that education is big business. Somewhat less attention is placed on the animal collection and more on creating "institutes" that can charge students many thousands of dollars to graduate into an industry where there are not enough jobs for them all.
And, as some posters have noted, exhibits these seem to have to be "themed" in order to appeal to visitors. Therefore the animal real estate is reduced to make way for ethnic villages, play areas and theme park models. Marketing people and zoo design consultants love them.
Finally, I can understand the need for a variety of food outlets in major zoos. When you consider our diverse population in major urban areas, and the need to feed potentially tens of thousands of people at peak times on busy days, then it makes good commercial sense to have a variety of appropriate food on offer at various locations. If those locations are adjacent to a major animal exhibit - bonus!
