The Autumn issue of Z magazine reveals that the site of the Conservation Golf course (currently in the process of being demolished) is to become a children's high ropes course. Similar to Go Ape. It will be open for Oct half term and will charge £5 a pop for the privilege
I mean it’s better than golf, and a decent time but I would’ve much preferred a new enclosure, but business is business I suppose.
I think we will see a lot more of this type of thing around the zoo in the coming years as they have to raise funds to keep the zoo moving forward. I don't hold much hope of the tropical house staying a exhibit much longer a shame really as it's a great place for bird lovers.
I was always confused as to the logic behind conservation golf and I feel much the same about its replacement. For all that ZooChatters might complain, people visit zoos - and pay a lot of money to do so - with the intention of seeing animals. It makes little sense to take 30+ minutes out of the day and pay more money to use what is essentially a separate attraction - so is this scheme likely to fare any better than the crazy golf course? It will go (and has always been expected to go), as much for structural reasons as anything. That said, I think Chester has done well with bird exhibits of late - the walk-through part of Monsoon Forest (one of three mixed walk-throughs just in Islands) is improving with time, for instance, and the Rainbow Aviaries refurb has been a success.
I do believe this will fair far better than the golf ever did. Lots of places use High rope courses for extra cash and they do work. Maybe if it’s well themed and keeps children out of the way for half an hour I think it should be a very good thing indeed.
With the number of visitors, the zoo hardly needs more gimmicks to raise money. Moreover, the secondary spend and the pressure it imparts is becoming a huge issue, something that is often raised as an issue at the AGM. Just for a change, I'd love to see an area such as this reclaimed and become a new animal enclosure.
Wish it was going to be a new animal enclosure. Mr Mottershead prided himself on the fact that his zoo was 'a zoo' unlike so many of the fairground, hurdy-gurdy, amusement parks of the time. It's not that long ago that staff at Chester Zoo frowned and tutted at the likes of Chessington and Flamingo land as their amusements detracted from their core function. Sad.
I have mixed feelings about this development. I don't think that Conservation Golf was an idea that worked particularly well and I do think that play areas have a real value in allowing children to let off steam while older members of the party can rest: so contributing to a successful family visit and increasing the likelihood of a return visit in the future. The problem with the rope apparatus is that it will require staff to control arrivals and departures and to ensure safety rules are followed, so making a charge will cover this cost but it will also require a further member of staff on admission duty. I don't really think it turns the zoo into a funfair, but I'm not sure whether £5 will be a reasonable price or how much of an attraction it will prove to be. On the other hand, I don't worry about the use of the space, the zoo has plenty of land available for many new animal enclosures in the years ahead.
I went to an old fashioned grammar school, and have a degree in English, never actually found out what parsing was.
I may well be using it incorrectly, but that's how I always have. In case I wasn't clear my point is that I don't understand why secondary spend would be an issue.
In the olden days, grammar schools did teach grammar - and very little else. This was because the essential subject was Latin, which meant that the pupils had to be able to analyse sentences into nouns, verbs, adjectives etc and then in terms of subject, object, tenses, participles and so on: this process is parsing. I was educated near the end of this tradition, at a grammar school established ante 1595. I quite enjoyed O-level Latin because fitting the right words into a Latin sentence is rather like solving a series of puzzles. Anyway, the main problem I see with the sentence in question is the word 'spend': in common English it is a verb, but in this case it is used a noun (a nasty modern habit, it would be better to use the gerund*). From the context, I presume the word 'secondary' means 'additional to the cost of admission' and 'issue' means 'potential cause for complaint': technically this is jargon busting rather parsing I should add that I agree with this statement, provided that I have interpreted it correctly. * 'spending'
From my recent visits( have been going there since 1960's...) I have noticed a trend it is going that way also.
"Secondary spend" is a current commercial term (post 1595 grammar schools) used to describe purchases made in addition to the primary cost, which in the context of this discussion, would be the cost of zoo admission. I'm sure there's room to discuss the etymology of the phrase in another forum that is more suited. Parents in particular, complain that whilst they're willing to pay for the cost of admission, there is an ever-present pressure around the zoo to spend even more - face painting, cuddly toys, monorail, inflatable giraffes, the list goes on. Today, with discounts, for a family of four (two adults, two children aged 3-17) admission to the zoo would cost £79.06. For many parents that is quite a considerable amount, and it's then impossible to avoid, and for some difficult to deny to their children all the additional cost items.
Do you mean land outside the current perimeter? If so, then I would suggest that just means people have to walk further and will see fewer animals along the way, and I'm not sure how that would be a good thing.
To quote Evelyn Waugh "Up to a point, Lord Copper." Which is a polite way of saying no, or at least not exactly. In the '60s, there were extra charges for the Aquarium and the Reptile House (and after they knocked that down, for the Tropical House) and of course for the Waterbus. At the moment there is an extra charge for the monorail, which I agree is a funfair element, although I'm not sure whether the free boat rides in Islands count as such. SMR is right to mention face-painting and much more merchandising too.* There are more play areas than there were originally, but this is a sign of increasing visitor numbers and also of social change. At the start of the 1960s, the public car park was outside the entrance, it is now the staff car park outside the staff entrance. Most visitors arrived by public transport, and during the last half hour of their visits they regularly looked at their watches to make sure they didn't miss their buses and trains home. Now there are not only more visitors, but most of them arrive by car and as the zoo is much larger, visits last longer and there is more demand for refreshments and places for visitors to relax and for children to play. Look at old films of Chester or other zoos, things were very different in those days. Zoos have always had to strike a balance between the demands of the animals and of the visitors. The pressures on commercial zoos are obvious, but not-for-profit zoos only have a little more leeway: collections owned by Merlin or Parques Reunidos have to offer what their visitors want, consequently Chester and the other collections owned by charitable trusts can hardly offer less, although they do not need to offer exactly the same things. As always, the question is - where do you draw the line? * 2 gerunds in the same phrase
Just dig up a few gardens To be serious, there are several places in the zoo which were once animal enclosures but are now effectively empty. The sites of the old beaver pool and the bird of prey aviaries along the north bank of the canal spring to mind. The shrubbery near the entrance to Butterfly House, where the hyaena pens were, could become an aviary or a small mammal display. There is also still space near the new enclosures at the entrance to Islands. I expect some of these may used eventually, but the zoo will expand beyond its current limits too.
I appeciate all the background reasons that you state. I think they are all very relevant too. Obviously Chester still feels like a 'proper' zoological collection when compared to the more entertainment -led places(e.g. Chessington, Flamingo Park etc). It is just the way things go I think.
My views on the peripheral flim-flam of the Gardens are well known. I think there are two downsides to the recent "direction of travel". Firstly - and already mentioned - the emphasis on "secondary spend" is clearly a difficulty for some visitors. Having spent, perhaps, £80 to get the family into the grounds in the first place and probably £30 to feed them, they (or to be more accurate, their children) are then attracted by a further £10 here, £12 there, £5 on something else ... and suddenly the family day out is heading toward £200! Secondly - are we a zoological collection or a theme park? Study the gift shop for an answer. There is a third point. What is the purpose of raising all this extra money?
