There is long discussion that London Zoo displays few animals, it cannot expand, and new exhibits are similar to several decades old exhibits elsewhere. Whipsnade is not really an all-year city zoo. Doesn't London need a brand new zoo, affiliated with ZSL or not? The zoo similar to Bronx Zoo in New York, easy to reach by city transport and with space to show large animals in big herds? Most metropolies have two or more big zoos, not counting aquariums, small zoos and out-of-the city safari parks. Paris has two zoos plus Thoiry park outside the city. New York has Central Park which is equivalent of London Zoo, Bronx Zoo and several other zoos. Singapore has 3 zoos, bird park and at least 2 big aquariums. Why London city should be reduced to one inadequate institution?
Possibly the most nonsensical thread since the one about Donald Trump's head! And besides, London does already have a number of zoos, in addition to the (not perfect but not inadequate) one in regent's park.... Battersea park children's zoo Sealife aquarium Horniman aquarium WWT centre ...and several other small park collections....
Perhaps because almost every zoo on Earth is struggling to stay open and no one is going to finance the facility you imagine?
What in your opinion makes London Zoo inadequate? Of course my opinion is that London does not need a new zoo. That would imply that the current zoo is not in any way fit for purpose and I would have thought that even its most vocal and constant critics on zoochat wouldn't hold that view.
don't forget there are zoos not far away from London such as paradise wildlife park. London zoo is a good zoo and it does need a few upgrades however a total new zoo is not relevant.
As one of those constant critics, I will for once agree with you on one thing - I would not want London zoo to leave its current site. What I and others would like to see is ZSL making better use of what space it does have available to achieve a larger and more diverse collection. It currently isn't doing that. London will never have large herds of big animals, as suggested in the opening post, unless it takes over a large portion of Regents Park. What it clearly needs in order to become one of the best UK zoos again, is another 10 acres or so to enable it to bring back for example : rhino, at least 1 bear species, a pinniped, another great ape, another big cat or 2, a few antelope species. This may not be possible, but on the current site there is plenty of space & unused buildings available to at least increase the small carnivore/cat & other small mammal collections. As I said on the London thread just look at what the RSCC manages in a tiny area - problem is I guess their enclosures wouldn't be considered expensive enough by ZSL management!
Considering the fact Birmingham has three very nice collections on its doorstep, plus another a little further away, it is not doing too badly. If anywhere needs a new zoo - in fact, a zoo full stop - it is Newcastle or Durham.
I have to say Im supportive off your idea Jurek7. I dont want London Zoo to close. It has been open for 200 years, and it has a lot of history and interesting species. I think that London Zoo does well on the area they have. They should continue to focus on smaller animals. What I think is strange is that a city of Londons calibre, the 3. largest city in Europe, with 8 million people does not have bears, hippos, elephants and antelopes. The variety of mammals and especially large mammals are very disapointing. What they should do is to build a second zoo in London, with a good selection of species. And/or expand the zoo on the Regents Park site. You know London have so many parks, so I dont see why they can not merge Regents park with the zoo. Also many cities in the world have more than one zoo (and now Im not thinking about aquariums and minizoo places like Batersea park). The cities include New York, Chicago, Berlin and Paris.
I think the OP's question is a fair one and replies so far have been a bit harsh. After all, we all moan about the lack of space, problem with unsuitable but listed buildings and regents park dislike the ease at which animals have so far escaped. So yes, in an ideal world where people have no sentiment or nostalgia for the zoos 200yr history at regents park, and where finance is not an issue, a new site would be the best option. But regents park is so famous, the site is so historic, the listed buildings so built with wild animals in mind, and financing so limited and finite, that I feel zsl will never vacate regents park. Personally, with 600 acres and a LOT of used land at whipsnade, this should be the site of zsl's future investment.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the UK forum supporters, I am going to throw in my opinion as a seasoned American zoo traveler who has also been to London Zoo and a handful of other UK zoos. My impression of London Zoo on my first visit to Europe in 2009 was one of utter disappointment, confirmed by a 2010 repeat visit. What really surprises me is how much Brits on this forum love it, as evidenced by its repeated appearance on the recent thread list your top five UK zoos. I have only been to 7 UK zoos and my top five still did not include London. Clearly its fans are swayed by the history and the conservation work of ZSL, both of which are great, but this still does not negate the fact that it is a lousy outdated zoo. On my last trip to Europe in 2013 I did not even bother to step foot in London Zoo, in spite of the fact that I flew into and out of London (Heathrow). So yes, I would say London needs a second zoo but I am not sure there is anyplace to put it. The fact that the UK as a whole and England in particular has an overabundance of zoos makes this need less pressing than it would be in a larger country. I will note that even my city of Tucson which has less than a million residents has two zoos which are both enthusiastically supported by locals.
Thanks, Norvegian Moose, leiclad20 and Arizona Docent! I think many people have misconceptions here. I find them frankly surprising on a forum with information on zoos across the world. New zoo, let's call it London Wildlife Park, does not mean closure of London Zoo, unless old zoo management wants it. Many metropolitan areas have 2 or 3 large zoos AND aquariums AND small petting zoos AND safari park AND all of them develop. London Wildlife Park would be more a complementation than competition to the London Zoo, Whipsnade, SeaLife etc. Different zoos in metropolitan areas like Paris, Berlin, New York, Madrid differentiate and offer different animal experiences, even if many popular animals overlap. Some are central, small and indoors, some more like outdoor parks, some more like theme parks etc. Size of London area also makes different audiences - people living far from London Zoo and Whipsnade would visit a zoo located closer to their part of the metropoly. Good example is New York, where temporary closing of New York Aquarium brought little additional visitors to Central Park and Bronx Zoos. There were having mostly different audiences. Many people dream of London Zoo developing back into a all-round zoo. I think it is a dream, given the current management who is interested in private fundraising parties, off-show zoological institute, cannot increase the zoo to the empty lawns of Regents Park, cannot demolish listed buildings, simply can not and wants not have a large and interesting collection. ZooPlantMan suggests economic crisis. In the current crisis times, many zoos beat attendance records, new small zoos open, and big zoos build record-breaking multi-million exhibits (Chester, Pairi Daiza, Zurich, Denver etc). The need of contact with nature grows faster than the crisis bites. It is also partially true that zoos are ersatz entertainment - people who cannot afford holiday travel go to the zoo instead. So think again - why London cannot have a new spacious zoo like Chester, Bronx or Pairi Daiza? (and yes, I am tongue in cheek and provocative - but it is realistic idea, except some attachment of Londoners to a part of tradition which is not really worth attaching to).
An interesting debate so far, but I wonder if anyone can answer the following: Let's imagine that London Zoo closed permanently after the 90's crisis. I'm aware much of the collection was to be disbanded or moved to Whipsnade. However, were there plans for the land or was it simply to be given back to Regents Park, with the listed buildings becoming relics or curiousities?
I ´ve never visited London zoo so can´t comment on its quality or attractiveness. But I think I can see where Jurek is comming from. That densely inhabited area of London (8 million), supported by 17 million tourists, could easily allow a rise of at least one or two additional major zoos. Economical potential of the City is huge and so far rather wasted by ZSL zoos. Based on zoo attendance per capita in large european cities, London city could provide cumulative zoo attendance of 4-6 mio, I think.
Not so much economic crisis as a more specific crisis in zoo and cultural institution support. In recent years there have been several very ambitious proposals in England for mega projects (Heart of Africa at Chester, Silverton Aquarium, the new Bristol wildlife-park come to mind) but they have been sadly reduced and diluted for lack of government support. With ZLS already managing the facilities they have it is very hard to believe that there is any will to create another semi-urban facility.
It is noticeable that those who are making the case for another London Zoo - and, of course, I would like it if there were a hundred new zoos across the UK - are not from the UK. I wonder whether they have visited London. It is not exactly a city in which space is plentiful. There are a number of large parks, but there is no chance at all that anything could be built on those. Which leaves the most extraordinarily densely crowded city, in which land prices are simply incredible.
I am now 51, and in my lifetime substantial collections have opened in Kent (the Aspinall parks), Essex (Colchester) and Oxfordshire (Cotswold Wildlife Park). They have detracted from London's potential gate - not that I am bemoaning the existence of any of them. It ought also to be remembered that Chessington is to all intents and purposes in London. So another zoo in London is about as necessary as Ebola. I'm not having a go at AD, who is a seasoned zoo enthusiast who knows what he's talking about. But those comments really hurt. Any ZSL Fellow, Friend or supporter should take them seriously to heart. For London to make an effort at once again being a top-class, diverse collection (and what is wrong with having that status in a city of London's size!!) getting the ten acres has to be attempted. And, IMHO, moving the Institute to Whipsnade would help enormously; its buildings are on the perimeter and are all over fifty years old, antique for office/lab space. A top class aquarium along the Outer Circle would make such a difference to London Zoo, and if the Institute wasn't there, the space would become available..
London could probably support another world class zoo, or an expanded ZSL, but the question is where to put it? Any green on the map of London is either a cherished island of nature or extremely valuable real estate. --- Birmingham already has the BNC, along with the Sealife Centre and Botanical Gardens, with Dudley, WMSP, Drayton Manor and Twycross all within a hour's drive. Brum doesn't have one big zoo, but they have plenty.
If London did need another zoo I am sure the demand for one would have been met years ago by some zoological entrepreneur, there was a safari park once at Windsor, opened by the Smart family in the late sixties, it is now LEGOLAND.
