But what do the two parts of the sentence have to do with one another? Are you saying that a zoo "with many ABC species" is automatically great, except when it's San Diego?
I do like ABC species, I'll do admit. I just think San Diego is bad at pulling this off because of its disorganization and how it seems to have limitless room for expansion while other zoos are struggling to even survive. I meant as how many zoos in large cities attempt to attract people with said ABC species.
Definitely one of the bigger leaps in logic I've come across of late though no less of a leap than the opinion sometimes held on here that San Diego is automatically great, because it is San Diego.
But San Diego is great! One of the few zoos that can satisfy nerds and muggles alike. The description of it as a “pit”, somewhere above, is baffling!
I think TLD's post would have been better read as "the opinion sometimes held on here that San Diego is automatically the greatest, because it is San Diego" as that was the basic sentiment put across by its supporters in the discussion to which he referred, rather than it just being "great". But yes, the "this pit of a zoo" of @Ebirah766 is indeed a baffling statement.
Baffling to me too! Even before the leaps in logic which followed. Yes, this was indeed my intended interpretation although I think my original wording is valid too - the reason a world-famous collection is great isn't the mere fact that it is world-famous.
The most overrated zoo for me would probably have to be the Smithsonian National Zoo. Asia Trail is excellent, there are some notable rarities, the Think Tank is pretty creative, and there has been some notable conservation successes. However, when I went about a decade ago, there were some areas needing improvement, coming across several empty exhibits was unfortunate, and the big hill was a pain (can't do much about that though). To be fair, most of my opinions on this Zoo were perhaps a case of bad luck and/or timing, and the additions since my tour, Elephant Trails and American Trail, do look impressive. I do wish to give Smithsonian another chance at some point in the future.
Yeah, now that I think about it, National Zoo would probably be my most overrated if I were to pick a single zoo. Although like San Diego, I would need to see it again in the present, as it's been a while.
I believe that last year 17 million visited, and London zoo therefore had an attendance of 1.1 million.
When I visited San Diego it was the realisation of a very long held ambition; very long held! If ever there was a test of a zoo's reality not matching its reputation I was it, and honestly, I wasn't disappointed. And that is without bias. If you say 'over rated' its the last collection that springs to mind. That said, its not underrated either. Its rated correctly. I agree a reputation for greatness doesn't make something great. London proves that.
I wouldn't say San Diego is "disorganized " it's just organized differently compared to most zoos. Most zoos are organized taxonomically or geographically, whereas San Diego is a big mix of the two, along with some, let's just say unique ways of organizing a collection (cough, cough Elephant Odyssey). And I really don't see how having lots of money is a complaint against the zoo, surely it's a good thing that San Diego invests a lot of money into improving exhibits?
Regarding the actual discussion regarding overrated zoos I'd say the Columbus Zoo would qualify as overrated in my opinion, but I visited out of season when a decent amount of the zoo was closed so I'll have to re-visit before I can get my final verdict on Columbus. The Bronx Zoo didn't quite live up to my lofty expectations, but it is still an amazing zoo, so I wouldn't consider it overrated. Luckily I've been to far more underrated zoos than overrated ones, and I hope it stays that way!
Yup I have to say a lot of zoos went far beyond my expectations of what they could deliver (cough cough Bristol zoo) so I guess that is a good thing. I guess there aren't many overrated zoos because are there that many zoos that are known enough to be highly rated? The average person would know their home zoo, maybe a zoo in a neighbouring major city, perhaps London, but probably not much else.
That 17 million looks low according to any internet search. I'm sorry but unless you can come up with a source for your 17 million it looks like you're making numbers up to fit your initial, challenged, quote. Additionally, it assumes no visitors who actually live in London (and I know a few personally).
