When the lower swine pens and penguin/pelican pool were swept away for the sloth bear enclosure, was this all done before the terraces were listed?
ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2013
- Thread starter Newzooboy
- Start date
When the lower swine pens and penguin/pelican pool were swept away for the sloth bear enclosure, was this all done before the terraces were listed?
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
The Goat Hills, I think, are the essential element of the Mappins from a preservationist point of view. I am sure that the Mappin Terraces were a listed Grade II structure well before the mid 90s revamp.
Sloth Bears were an unfortunate choice inasmuch as they're relatively small and undramatic. Doubtless having evolved in India alongside Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Wolves and Dholes, they are rather retiring; certainly I've heard tales of the female bear "Lanka" being frightened by dogs barking in the park nearby. Nor did it help that both of the original pair arrived displaying stereotypical behaviour from their previous home.
The fact still remains that the then Curator of Mammals made a brave attempt to get bears back to London, and succeeded in getting two cubs from a pair of endangered animals. Personally, I feel that the decision to abandon that project in favour of some common Australian animals (Brolgas excepted!) is rather sad.
As for the Aquarium - yes, not to have an Aquarium at London Zoo would be a loss. But can anyone really say with confidence that that building can be refurbished to stand comparison with good, never mind great, European aquaria? Sooty, living in Sussex, might be able to comment on the present state of the Brighton Aquarium. The only other sizable pre-Second World War aquaria that I can think of were Edinburgh's (closed some thirty years ago) and Blackpool Tower's (closed in the last three or four years). In both cases the decision was made that it was time to let go.
Better, IMHO, to get the Mappins back into use for charismatic animals (how about Lions, with the Goat Hills being meshed over for vultures?), use the Aquarium space for something workable, and look for a site elsewhere at RP where a decent aquarium could be created.
Sloth Bears were an unfortunate choice inasmuch as they're relatively small and undramatic. Doubtless having evolved in India alongside Lions, Tigers, Leopards, Wolves and Dholes, they are rather retiring; certainly I've heard tales of the female bear "Lanka" being frightened by dogs barking in the park nearby. Nor did it help that both of the original pair arrived displaying stereotypical behaviour from their previous home.
The fact still remains that the then Curator of Mammals made a brave attempt to get bears back to London, and succeeded in getting two cubs from a pair of endangered animals. Personally, I feel that the decision to abandon that project in favour of some common Australian animals (Brolgas excepted!) is rather sad.
As for the Aquarium - yes, not to have an Aquarium at London Zoo would be a loss. But can anyone really say with confidence that that building can be refurbished to stand comparison with good, never mind great, European aquaria? Sooty, living in Sussex, might be able to comment on the present state of the Brighton Aquarium. The only other sizable pre-Second World War aquaria that I can think of were Edinburgh's (closed some thirty years ago) and Blackpool Tower's (closed in the last three or four years). In both cases the decision was made that it was time to let go.
Better, IMHO, to get the Mappins back into use for charismatic animals (how about Lions, with the Goat Hills being meshed over for vultures?), use the Aquarium space for something workable, and look for a site elsewhere at RP where a decent aquarium could be created.
No, it was listed 21st Feb 1989.
Modifications to listed buildings can be made if permission is granted before work starts, but appropriate materials must be used.
I think that even if it were possible to repair the whole structure perfectly, the zoo licensing system would severely limit its use.
It might be possible to combine 2 or more of the bear enclosures and the wild sheep 'mountains' likewise to give more space for the animals but I doubt if the barriers between the 'mountains' and the public or the dry ditches on the downhill side of the bear enclosures would be acceptable now. As I recall some of the public walkways are not very wide, so I doubt if there would be room for stand-offs and all the steps would be a big problem for push chairs etc (I guess wheelchair access would only be possible by installing lifts).
I would hate to see the aquarium being closed, but its long term future depends on its structural viability. If the finance could be found, a new aquarium would be wonderful. Then the space under the Mappins could be reinvented for reptiles and/or a large nocturnal exhibit, with lifts going up to a glass enclosed terrace to view refurbished exhibits on the upper levels - without changing the external appearance significantly
Alan
Last edited:
These regulations are endangering the future of London Zoo and make the listed building status for a structure that is for all good purposes in a continually dangerous state of disrepair is quite, quite absurd.
The aquarium does some great work with threatened fish faunas and I would certainly propose for an aquarium structure to remain at ZSL / London Zoo. For the amount of cash it was proposed to do the aquarium elsewhere the whole Mappins could have had a complete make-over.
Personally, I agree with listed building status for structures of a particular architectural value, yet it has to be valid. In this case I cannot see the validity for the reasons provided in my first paragraph. I would seriously consider taking it all down and starting a new. Here, the listed building status is a complete lame duck!
The aquarium does some great work with threatened fish faunas and I would certainly propose for an aquarium structure to remain at ZSL / London Zoo. For the amount of cash it was proposed to do the aquarium elsewhere the whole Mappins could have had a complete make-over.
Personally, I agree with listed building status for structures of a particular architectural value, yet it has to be valid. In this case I cannot see the validity for the reasons provided in my first paragraph. I would seriously consider taking it all down and starting a new. Here, the listed building status is a complete lame duck!
I am fairly neutral on the future of the aquarium,but on a site as small as London's, the current use of the Mappins really is a waste of a fairly large area and if the aquarium had to go for the sake of progress , whilst being a loss, i don't think it would damage the zoo's popularity or appeal too much.
There is nowhere on the existing site to build a new one though & if the zoo ever did acquire extra acres i wouldn't have thought an aquarium would be a priority for spending - more likely that would be used to bring back some of the larger species lost over the last 30 years.
The aquarium is useful on bad weather days in particular, but for years many visitors didn't even go in there due to the extra charge.
There is nowhere on the existing site to build a new one though & if the zoo ever did acquire extra acres i wouldn't have thought an aquarium would be a priority for spending - more likely that would be used to bring back some of the larger species lost over the last 30 years.
The aquarium is useful on bad weather days in particular, but for years many visitors didn't even go in there due to the extra charge.
Last edited:
These regulations are endangering the future of London Zoo and make the listed building status for a structure that is for all good purposes in a continually dangerous state of disrepair is quite, quite absurd.
The aquarium does some great work with threatened fish faunas and I would certainly propose for an aquarium structure to remain at ZSL / London Zoo. For the amount of cash it was proposed to do the aquarium elsewhere the whole Mappins could have had a complete make-over.
Personally, I agree with listed building status for structures of a particular architectural value, yet it has to be valid. In this case I cannot see the validity for the reasons provided in my first paragraph. I would seriously consider taking it all down and starting a new. Here, the listed building status is a complete lame duck!
I agree you, particularly about the conservation work at the Aquarium - but the law about listed buildings is inflexible. ZSL can either negotiate an agreement with Westminster City Council about the future of the building or try to get it delisted (difficult but not completely impossible) so that it can be demolished or significantly altered.
Alan
Can someone please help me understand.....is the current poor status of the mappins (the emu bit) due to maintenance issues with the aquarium filters underneath the moutains?
If the engineering/filtering required for the water system is the problem, then yes I feel the hall should be converted to a nocturnal house or invertebrate house that requires less pipework and water resevoirs. The listed status does not dictate what the internal space should be used for, only how the structure is affected.
However if the engineering systems in the aquarium can be bought up to modern standards and not impact on using the open air enclosures above then I strongly feel they should do this. Does the grade 2 status stop zsl ripping out bits of inner wall to make the fish exhibits have floors to ceiling glass, and would this be structurally possible?
Re garding the goat hills, the walkway between them is unlikely to ever be used for public again as it is narrow and not wheelchair accessible, but its a large space and would still be suitable for rare goat species like bharal/dwarf blue sheep/himalayan tahr/himalayan serow. the hills are viewable at a distance from the current viewing area.
whatever fills the main enclosure must not scare the goats, need huge fencing or be boring. ideally it needs to be a group animal that uses the space and does not need male/female separation. And should really be an endagered animal, i think the time has come for big zoos to focus on breeding rare stuff an not holding captive animals for public entertainment only. lion tailed macaques? geladas? alternatively if the squirrel monkeys escape again they could be rehoused here, with other southamerican monkeys, capybara, pudu, agouti and waterfowl. This may require too much housing.
With Londons zoo's limited space, aquariums, reptile houses, nocturnal and invertebrate houses allow huge numbers of species to be displayed, but also make the zoo and all weather attraction, and this is what regents park should focus on (and potentially build more of). Tigers, lions, giraffes and gorillas and a token few other ABC species will draw in the masses, and the remaining big animals should be relocated to whipsnade. Keeping that aqurium, and making it as world class as it once was, is therefore key.
If the engineering/filtering required for the water system is the problem, then yes I feel the hall should be converted to a nocturnal house or invertebrate house that requires less pipework and water resevoirs. The listed status does not dictate what the internal space should be used for, only how the structure is affected.
However if the engineering systems in the aquarium can be bought up to modern standards and not impact on using the open air enclosures above then I strongly feel they should do this. Does the grade 2 status stop zsl ripping out bits of inner wall to make the fish exhibits have floors to ceiling glass, and would this be structurally possible?
Re garding the goat hills, the walkway between them is unlikely to ever be used for public again as it is narrow and not wheelchair accessible, but its a large space and would still be suitable for rare goat species like bharal/dwarf blue sheep/himalayan tahr/himalayan serow. the hills are viewable at a distance from the current viewing area.
whatever fills the main enclosure must not scare the goats, need huge fencing or be boring. ideally it needs to be a group animal that uses the space and does not need male/female separation. And should really be an endagered animal, i think the time has come for big zoos to focus on breeding rare stuff an not holding captive animals for public entertainment only. lion tailed macaques? geladas? alternatively if the squirrel monkeys escape again they could be rehoused here, with other southamerican monkeys, capybara, pudu, agouti and waterfowl. This may require too much housing.
With Londons zoo's limited space, aquariums, reptile houses, nocturnal and invertebrate houses allow huge numbers of species to be displayed, but also make the zoo and all weather attraction, and this is what regents park should focus on (and potentially build more of). Tigers, lions, giraffes and gorillas and a token few other ABC species will draw in the masses, and the remaining big animals should be relocated to whipsnade. Keeping that aqurium, and making it as world class as it once was, is therefore key.
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
This is very blue sky thinking, but one of the constraints at London Zoo is the presence of the Institute of Zoology, which shares the site. IF the Institute was elsewhere - and Whipsnade has so much unused land, is equidistant from London, Oxford and Cambridge, and is owned by ZSL, not leased - then several buildings at London would fall vacant. A deal with the Royal Parks would (maybe) secure more land from the Park, if the profits from the redevelopment of unused buildings were shared.
The present building shared by the Institute and the Meeting Rooms is big and is on the Outer Circle. This makes the provision of utilities easier, and it can be accessed when the Zoo is closed. Might I suggest that, in a better world (!), that makes it the perfect site for an aquarium?
The present building shared by the Institute and the Meeting Rooms is big and is on the Outer Circle. This makes the provision of utilities easier, and it can be accessed when the Zoo is closed. Might I suggest that, in a better world (!), that makes it the perfect site for an aquarium?
Ian, sounds like a marvellous idea. I really am fond of ZSL London Zoo and would applaud the Royal Parks to do a good deed here for the greater good of London Metro and its Zoo. Grand!
Sounds an excellent idea to me, if only the Zoo Council and Authorities would play ball!
Johnstoni..
New Member
ZSL have an aquarium of very high quality, especially when compared to many of the seaside aquaria dotted around the UK, and given its age I think the way the team have made innovative use of the available tank space is commendable. Photo-sharing sites such as Flickr are often good benchmarks of what people take away from a visit, and the Aquarium apeears one of the most regularly-photographed exhibits at the zoo. When the Silvertown Quays development was on the cards for ZSL, I too was hoping for maybe a larger nocturnal house or something similarly ambitious in place of the existing aquarium. With a third ZSL site potentially housing manatees and other mammals alongside their fish collection, I doubt anyone would have argued for the retaining of an aquarium at the Regent's Park site, however with this having not come to fruition I think the existing aquarium is a highly-used asset in all weather. Obviously, news of another proposed aquarium development by ZSL along the lines of Silvertown Quays would be very welcome in the future.
The Mappin Terraces have a series of underground 'goat runs' running underneath the old bear enclosures from the caves in the goat hills down to what would have been the indoor wild pig accommodation. It wouldn't be too difficult to restore these with some cave entrances dug out at the bottom of the enclosure. This would eliminate the need for structural work to combine the goat hills with the main enclosure. These underground runs can be seen in the book 'the buildings of London Zoo', Does anyone know whether these were ever used to move animals between the top and bottom levels? While underground tunnels may not be readily used by goats, I can see some primates making use of this. I think the iconic structures are done justice when occupied, rather than used as a backdrop (although I understand the 'Ayers rock' imagery for an Outback exhibit does work, the fact the area has been annexed to seemingly separate wallaby from emu detracts from what was originally an aesthetically stunning outback exhibit). Therefore it would be fantastic to see a baboon or macaque species alongisde a wild caprid, such as the Bronx gelada/ibex mixing, where both species would potentially use all levels of the structure. While I could be wrong, I strongly suspect the zoo was holding out for pandas in 2012, that the Mappins would have been the site used for any enclosure, and that the Outback was a temporary display that has remained when no pandas were forthcoming.
While its great that vicunas have returned to the zoo after many years absent, it does make me question why the zoo retains domestic stock such in the children's zoo, when there are numerous city farms (free of charge) dotted around London. The more common species suitable for walk-through exhibits kept elsewhere in the zoo (wallabies being a prime example), could easily be housed in Animal Adventure if it weren't for the llama, alpacas, sheep and donkeys, the latter of which appear to have a more generous amount of space than the nearby camels.
So the spider monkeys have moved to Gorilla Kingdom? In the first cage before the gorillas?
Did the Rockhopper penguins ever reappear at Whipsnade? Or are there perhaps now more than one at London?
The Mappin Terraces have a series of underground 'goat runs' running underneath the old bear enclosures from the caves in the goat hills down to what would have been the indoor wild pig accommodation. It wouldn't be too difficult to restore these with some cave entrances dug out at the bottom of the enclosure. This would eliminate the need for structural work to combine the goat hills with the main enclosure. These underground runs can be seen in the book 'the buildings of London Zoo', Does anyone know whether these were ever used to move animals between the top and bottom levels? While underground tunnels may not be readily used by goats, I can see some primates making use of this. I think the iconic structures are done justice when occupied, rather than used as a backdrop (although I understand the 'Ayers rock' imagery for an Outback exhibit does work, the fact the area has been annexed to seemingly separate wallaby from emu detracts from what was originally an aesthetically stunning outback exhibit). Therefore it would be fantastic to see a baboon or macaque species alongisde a wild caprid, such as the Bronx gelada/ibex mixing, where both species would potentially use all levels of the structure. While I could be wrong, I strongly suspect the zoo was holding out for pandas in 2012, that the Mappins would have been the site used for any enclosure, and that the Outback was a temporary display that has remained when no pandas were forthcoming.
While its great that vicunas have returned to the zoo after many years absent, it does make me question why the zoo retains domestic stock such in the children's zoo, when there are numerous city farms (free of charge) dotted around London. The more common species suitable for walk-through exhibits kept elsewhere in the zoo (wallabies being a prime example), could easily be housed in Animal Adventure if it weren't for the llama, alpacas, sheep and donkeys, the latter of which appear to have a more generous amount of space than the nearby camels.
So the spider monkeys have moved to Gorilla Kingdom? In the first cage before the gorillas?
Did the Rockhopper penguins ever reappear at Whipsnade? Or are there perhaps now more than one at London?
More 'Musical cages' at ZSL. This one seems to do away with the idea of having only African Monkeys in the Gorilla Kingdom area. I think its time the awful fake tree was removed- it never fulfilled its original purpose and now it hasn't got one at all! Maybe in the winter?
It does seem strange to put the spider monkeys in the middle of gorilla kingdom effectively, at least the gibbons weren't really part of the exhibit when they were in their old cage. Now the Diana Monkeys which did fit the theme have been relegated to this outlying cage!
Have to agree on the fake tree, it has to go!
IanRRobinson
Well-Known Member
Agreed completely. My partner, totally unprompted by me, has said the same regarding the farm at Whipsnade. Might I suggest, though, that London gives priority to getting back Arabian Oryx? As an iconic species and an ambassador for ZSL's work in Arabia, the species really should be held at London, and the sheep/llama paddocks ought to be plenty big enough.
The farm at Whipsnade seems to be bypassed by a lot of people. If you tour the park anticlockwise which seems the most obvious route, it is pretty much at the end of the trip- people are tired and possibly not overly interested in seeing domestics then. I have been in there a couple of times but on each occassion I was the only visitor.
Arabian Oryx- agree- ZSL should have this iconic species and it should definately be in London, not hidden away at Whipsnade, and as a permanent fixture.
I am really concerned they will be lost from the UK if Marwell should suddenly decide not to keep them anymore( I am aware they did recently import a new male(or pair?) but longerterm things can change)
catinthehat
Well-Known Member
Don't know if anyone has seen but there is a new series of "The Zoo" starting next Wednesday on ITV1
The Zoo Episode 1 | presscentre
The Zoo Episode 1 | presscentre
devilfish
Well-Known Member
I visited today for the first time in several months. I didn't get to see everything but was a bit surprised by the primate moves (sorry - had missed a few things on this thread). It's nice to see a few reptile species back on display, and the Clore had been through a few more changes (though the sloths were both in the main rainforest area and there were more mice around than ever before).
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where did the red kangaroos come from?
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where did the red kangaroos come from?