ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2013

[Pertinax]

only reinforces my view that something good could be done with the Mappins too! It's just a mess and even more so when it's the next thing you see after the flash new tiger enclosure!

I agree that its transformations so far (Sloth Bears and now 'Australia') have not been wildly successful.

I think it does really need a large, high profile Species in order to complement the large available area, and the large viewing area in front of the Restaurant. Lions would be one option but would it be worth the expenditure, given I think they could majorly improve where they are now just by filling in the watermoat and landscaping and doubling their land area.

 

[pipaluk]

Thanks Pipaluk. Are there still animals in those cages at the back of the viewing terrace(they originally held just Canid species- later a mishmash of birds and others) or is that areasealedoff nowadays?

You can't get to those cages at the moment, as the access path is gated, i looked through the fence on the tiger ramp but couldn't see anything in them, but the label boards are still on them. About 4 years ago there was a ruffed lemur & birds used in the shows kept in them, but i remember canids being there too 30 years plus ago.

 

[pipaluk]

Yes,its probably the highest price thats ever been charged for a zoo entry excluding the theme park zoos....then again,the mind- numbing banality of Madame Tussauds just down the road is £30 to enter and the rather tedious London Eye a whopping £37 for a view rather inferior to many others in London.As for the remark "of that calibre" please be reminded that the zoo is still one of the best in the uk...with the best reptile house,best aquarium[in a zoo],best insect house-whats more it invented all those things!

Although London Zoo is expensive, particularly compared to other better zoos, that's largely down to location and i agree that compared to other London 'attractions' it is good value. I spent over 6 hours there on Thursday, though i did go back to some areas and spent an hour in Tiger Territory admittedly.
The main reason i spent longer than usual there was because i went alone! Much as I love London, my daughter doesn't, as many other disappointed people have told me after visiting for the first time in years. I don't see London as being one of the best uk zoos any more , as i've said many times before. Yes, good reptile house, aquarium and insect house, but to the majority these wouldn't make it one of the best zoos. A reptile house with only one small crocodilian is hardly that impressive either and the aquarium has been reduced.
If 'one of the best' means top 10, i'd agree with you, but like many others on here i suspect you mean higher than that!
I think it's location and history are the main reasons London gets such high visitor numbers. 30 years ago it was without doubt the best, but its fallen several places down the list now, in my opinion.

 

[Pertinax]

Much as I love London, my daughter doesn't, as many other disappointed people have told me after visiting for the first time in years. I don't see London as being one of the best uk zoos any more , as i've said many times before.

I think it's location and history are the main reasons London gets such high visitor numbers. 30 years ago it was without doubt the best, but its fallen several places down the list now, in my opinion.

I think 'atmosphere' is very important when visiting zoos and may subconsciously affect one's impressions both during and after visits. Whatever they do at London, and even with the occassional expensive new exhibit, it still lacks the vibrancy of e.g. Chester or some other places. The large looming plane trees, plethora of concrete in paths and buildings and the Victorian overtones of the older buildings all combine to give it that dated 'Zoo' feel.

While there's no denying it does boast a hugely comprehensive collection, particularly in the Fish, Reptile and Insect (and Bird?) departments, they still can't get away from that 'archaic' feel, I fear.

 

[pipaluk]

I think 'atmosphere' is very important when visiting zoos and may subconsciously affect one's impressions both during and after visits. Whatever they do at London, and even with the occassional expensive new exhibit, it still lacks the vibrancy of e.g. Chester or some other places. The large looming plane trees, plethora of concrete in paths and buildings and the Victorian overtones of the older buildings all combine to give it that dated 'Zoo' feel.

While there's no denying it does boast a hugely comprehensive collection, particularly in the Fish, Reptile and Insect (and Bird?) departments, they still can't get away from that 'archaic' feel, I fear.

There is definitely a different 'feel' to London compared to other zoos, but i find it's more the diminished collection many are unimpressed by.

 

[Tim Brown]

Actually i consider London to be amongst the most atmospheric of the near-700 zoos ive visited.Every footstep is one that treads on zoological history and whilst the mishmash of architectural styles may not be to the taste of those that prefer vast fields stretching out to infinity, i love the famous old place-and it might be remembered that ALL zoos owe it a great debt.It was the first in so many areas.

 

[Pertinax]

Actually i consider London to be amongst the most atmospheric of the near-700 zoos ive visited.Every footstep is one that treads on zoological history and whilst the mishmash of architectural styles may not be to the taste of those that prefer vast fields stretching out to infinity, i love the famous old place-and it might be remembered that ALL zoos owe it a great debt.It was the first in so many areas.

I do have to agree with you, but at the same time feel that for many people without a serious interest in Zoos, that the atmosphere is less appealing.

 

[Tim Brown]

I grew up recognising "the big four" to be West Berlin,the Bronx,San Diego and London.Yes it is frustrating that London no longer rubs shoulders with those three others-today this is hardly helped by its size[36 acres] and conflicting pressures but actually the zoo is looking better than it has for many a year-and the latest masterplan is a good one[although weve seen a few of those in the past].Best of luck to them with their £25 entrance fee...let the people pay say i,doesnt it cost twice as much at least to watch Arsenal or Spurs? -and never a trophy either!

 

[TARZAN]

Although London Zoo is expensive, particularly compared to other better zoos, that's largely down to location and i agree that compared to other London 'attractions' it is good value. I spent over 6 hours there on Thursday, though i did go back to some areas and spent an hour in Tiger Territory admittedly.
The main reason i spent longer than usual there was because i went alone! Much as I love London, my daughter doesn't, as many other disappointed people have told me after visiting for the first time in years. I don't see London as being one of the best uk zoos any more , as i've said many times before. Yes, good reptile house, aquarium and insect house, but to the majority these wouldn't make it one of the best zoos. A reptile house with only one small crocodilian is hardly that impressive either and the aquarium has been reduced.
If 'one of the best' means top 10, i'd agree with you, but like many others on here i suspect you mean higher than that!
I think it's location and history are the main reasons London gets such high visitor numbers. 30 years ago it was without doubt the best, but its fallen several places down the list now, in my opinion.

I think, like myself, you remember the zoo thirty plus years ago when the animal collection was a lot larger, it must be only a third to half of what it was then, on the other side of the coin I think we must agree that the gorillas living in Gorilla Kingdom have a far better standard of living to what Guy had in the old monkey house, the penguins are far better off on the Penguin Beach than what they were in the old Lubitkin pool, and the tigers are now living in the lap of luxury to what their predecessors had in the old lion house, it can also be said that Mya and Aziza the elephants are better off at Whipsnade since they left the Casson. Nostalgia and sentiment plays a large part in my affection for this zoo, I can recall as a small child seeing on Blue Peter features of new exhibits and animals at Regent's Park, and even today after looking at Stulch's photos of the new tiger enclosure, I still get the same feeling of looking forward to seeing it as I had years ago. Regarding the Mappins, I always spend a bit of time on the terrace there, I think I reminisce about what was on it years ago rather than view what is currently on offer, hopefully, when finances permit this will be the next major project for the zoo, of coarse, what actually gets placed there is open for debate, lions, giant pandas, polar bears or whatever.

 

[Tim Brown]

Well we are in the realm of what constitutes a good zoo arent we? and if i look at London holistically, then across the animal kingdom[rather than just mammals] the collection comes second only to Chester in this country...and it still has a reptile house.The attendance is second only to Chester as well, the place is still very popular dont forget,in fact the zoo has been concerned that it could not offer an adequate visitor experience[generally] if it had some of the visitor figures of yore.Yes i moan and groan about some of the things there[i particularly dislike the conversion of the Clore for instance] but in essence i think things are looking better than they have for quite a while.

 

[Pertinax]

I grew up recognising "the big four" to be West Berlin,the Bronx,San Diego and London.Yes it is frustrating that London no longer rubs shoulders with those three others-

I think one problem for London zoo is the fact that the ZSL collection is split between the two sites which combined together do still represent a pretty major force collectionwise. Whereas stand-alone London, for the mammals at least, is conspicuous for the losses and absence of many larger species compared to yesteryear.

 

[johnstoni.]

You can't get to those cages at the moment, as the access path is gated, i looked through the fence on the tiger ramp but couldn't see anything in them, but the label boards are still on them. About 4 years ago there was a ruffed lemur & birds used in the shows kept in them, but i remember canids being there too 30 years plus ago.

This area was envisaged as an off-show cubbing area in the original plans for Tiger Territory. Its interesting that they have decided against this, and have effectively left the area undeveloped. Given that it has just been left as it was (label boards still up), it is possible that they delayed some areas of the development in order to get the main exhibit open. However, in one interview I saw online, the main house was mentioned as having a cubbing area, so its possible that they looked again at the wisdom of using an area efectively underneath a public walkway and so near to the zoo perimeter. Also, it was significant to me that the project manager implied that the exhibit won't necessarily be used for just tigers long-term, which leads me to think they will attempt to acquire pandas again further down the line.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

I would say the zoo stands to be second to Chester in species and appeal. I would like to see some extension into Regent's Park ... knowing it may not happen (RF please give some ...).

Another note: what is the long term plan around the Tiger Territory? Anoas, .. Malayan tapirs ... and ... and ???

 

[IanRRobinson]

I still feel that Tiger Territory was too expensive, but each to their own. It does look impressive, and if London finally now has a Tiger exhibit that breeds tigers then I'll be genuinely delighted.

There is a definite need to get more charismatic species onsite. I am aware that a good deal of my posts on London appear very critical, but they are written from the standpoint of a man who loves the place with a passion, and who can remember it as a huge zoo which required more than one day to see everything. Whilst I am emphatically not starry-eyed about the London Zoo of (say) 1973, I honestly do feel that more intelligent redevelopment could have retained more species.

As an example, the canal banks on either side are woefully underused. Birds of prey, big hornbills, lemurs, howler monkeys, spider monkeys, gibbons, small cats, Fossa, Red Panda, Southern Pudu - these are all taxa that are presently not kept at London or shown indifferently, and could be housed relatively easily in this area.

 

[pipaluk]

I still feel that Tiger Territory was too expensive, but each to their own. It does look impressive, and if London finally now has a Tiger exhibit that breeds tigers then I'll be genuinely delighted.

There is a definite need to get more charismatic species onsite. I am aware that a good deal of my posts on London appear very critical, but they are written from the standpoint of a man who loves the place with a passion, and who can remember it as a huge zoo which required more than one day to see everything. Whilst I am emphatically not starry-eyed about the London Zoo of (say) 1973, I honestly do feel that more intelligent redevelopment could have retained more species.

As an example, the canal banks on either side are woefully underused. Birds of prey, big hornbills, lemurs, howler monkeys, spider monkeys, gibbons, small cats, Fossa, Red Panda, Southern Pudu - these are all taxa that are presently not kept at London or shown indifferently, and could be housed relatively easily in this area.

Have to agree entirely with this post!

Tiger Territory really is an excellent exhibit, but I find it hard to believe it cost 3.5 million. I too was sceptical about spending this amount on a current species, relatively common in UK zoos.
All my criticism is based on my own passion for the place and my wish for it to become a zoo I could recommend to everyone again!
I've said loads on other threads about underused areas, but the other day, looking across at the woodland walk, i realised just what a large area it is. It could easily house a number of cats, other carnivores or primates, in fact if it wasn't for the waterbus platform, it could make a great bear enclosure.
The north bank aviaries seem to be lacking variety at the moment, with 8 cages taken by 2 species- 5 pairs of tawny frogmouth & 3 holding hawk owl. Only 2 or 3species of phesant & 1 hornbill now too.

 

[pipaluk]

I would say the zoo stands to be second to Chester in species and appeal. I would like to see some extension into Regent's Park ... knowing it may not happen (RF please give some ...).

Another note: what is the long term plan around the Tiger Territory? Anoas, .. Malayan tapirs ... and ... and ???

Long term plan - to extend the other side of the Casson & replace the Bearded Pigs with.... Sumatran Rhino. Serioualy though, there is little room to extend it, with the new Camel enclosure, Komodo dragon exhibit & gorilla kingdom boxing it in, unless they use the lawns to the side of the Casson for expansion of th the pig area for something else. Sumatran Orangs maybe, but the listed status of the main building would make necessary alterations near impossible.
London 2nd to Chester- maybe for some, but i and many others would probably place London more like 6th or 7th!

 

[IanRRobinson]

The canal banks are not suitable for larger, destructive animals. Although the Canal was dug over 200 years ago, the soil is still not stable enough to cope with heavy structures, and thie issue gets worse the further eastward you go.

Originally the idea was to extend the lower Cotton Terraces all the way along towards the East Footbridge, but I assume that this was deemed to be impractical.With benefit of hindsight it seems a pity that the Zoo didn't just refurbish the Burton Giraffe House, using its flanking dens for a zebra species and a suitable antelope, and use the whole of the canal banks, north and south, for birds and medium sized mammals.

 

[pipaluk]

The canal banks are not suitable for larger, destructive animals. Although the Canal was dug over 200 years ago, the soil is still not stable enough to cope with heavy structures, and thie issue gets worse the further eastward you go.

Originally the idea was to extend the lower Cotton Terraces all the way along towards the East Footbridge, but I assume that this was deemed to be impractical.With benefit of hindsight it seems a pity that the Zoo didn't just refurbish the Burton Giraffe House, using its flanking dens for a zebra species and a suitable antelope, and use the whole of the canal banks, north and south, for birds and medium sized mammals.

Bears wouldn't be realistic anyway i guess, but small cats, primates or birds in the woodland walk would be, i didn't see anyone in that at various times through the day.

 

[pipaluk]

I think, like myself, you remember the zoo thirty plus years ago when the animal collection was a lot larger, it must be only a third to half of what it was then, on the other side of the coin I think we must agree that the gorillas living in Gorilla Kingdom have a far better standard of living to what Guy had in the old monkey house, the penguins are far better off on the Penguin Beach than what they were in the old Lubitkin pool, and the tigers are now living in the lap of luxury to what their predecessors had in the old lion house, it can also be said that Mya and Aziza the elephants are better off at Whipsnade since they left the Casson. Nostalgia and sentiment plays a large part in my affection for this zoo, I can recall as a small child seeing on Blue Peter features of new exhibits and animals at Regent's Park, and even today after looking at Stulch's photos of the new tiger enclosure, I still get the same feeling of looking forward to seeing it as I had years ago. Regarding the Mappins, I always spend a bit of time on the terrace there, I think I reminisce about what was on it years ago rather than view what is currently on offer, hopefully, when finances permit this will be the next major project for the zoo, of coarse, what actually gets placed there is open for debate, lions, giant pandas, polar bears or whatever.

I do exactly the same every time i stand on the terrace and think back to the Polar Bear feeding times of my childhood. I agree times have moved on from zoos like London holding 6 bear species and larger cats being held in small barred cages, but still feel London has plenty of underused areas that could boost its diminished collection a bit.

 

[stulch]

I think the thing about London Zoo is they are trying to improve it graduley and responsibly allowing for finances, not overstreching themselves remembering the dark days of being on the brink of closing for good while also rasing a significant amount a year for conservation (I think £8 million a year was mentioned in the first series of the ITV series The Zoo).

While I think we would all like things to progress quicker and I wish they would develope the north bank, in view of the above I think they are doing the right thing. In my mind they have made significant progress since 2005.

However, if they have a good year (and I'm sure the British summer will play a big part) I wouldn't rule out things progressing a little quicker than of late.