I’d add that this goes back to the 1980s, and the appointment of first Michael Brambell and then Gordon McGregor-Reid to lead the zoo. Foundations were very much laid for the future success - even if, at the time, Chester was no more exceptional than, say, Edinburgh, or even London. Subsequently, there has been an adherence to Mottershead’s famous claim (“always building”) meaning that the zoo has constantly been exciting and ‘new’, in direct contrast to some of its more somnambulant rivals. And, despite its many missteps (that would likely only be seen thus by nerds) the PR department clearly deserves acclaim. The value of that TV series is incalculable. Whoever negotiated that one merits a place in the Chester Zoo pantheon!
Derek Wood, director of Auckland Zoo from 1960-1988, wrote in his book about how inspired he was by Chester Zoo’s forward thinking approach for a zoo of it’s day. Especially the move away from barred cages to moats etc. Auckland Zoo also benefited greatly from it’s TV series which ran for around a decade.
I was in fact pleasantly surprised by London zoo when visiting last year. But this was mostly due to sub-zero expectations based on this forum. I have to agree that London is likely the most 'overrated' zoo. It simply doesn't do justice to its name - not by a long shot. I also cannot see the listed status of many of its buildings as a good reason/excuse for this, when (a) new developments with no listed buildings that require consideration, such as Land of the Lions or Butterfly Paradise, are - imho - more or less consistently throughout the zoo, utterly botched designs, and (b) other zoos like Vienna, Basel - even Berlin - demonstrate that listed buildings absolutely can be an asset to a zoo. Land of the Lions is cross-viewing galore and orchestrates its residents as props of what appears a cheap and cheesy copy of a Bollywood film set. The gorillas feature a fake tree stump that a giant seems to have rammed into the ground roots in the air and whose only purpose seems ugliness, utterly ruining the entire exhibit of otherwise... mediocre appeal. The Mappin Terraces - what a bizarre idea to use them as backdrop for kangaroos and emus - and what fantastic enclosures they could make! The Butterfly Paradise inflatable tunnel manages to be gaudy and seedy at the same time. In fact, now that I think of it, several times I felt the zoo didn't treat its animals with the appropriate level of respect. I'm not talking about husbandry here, but about the zoo treating its animals as a spectacle, bizarre props for our entertainment, rather than fascinating creatures that deserve our respect. I'm probably being too harsh here. The husbandry didn't seem bad. Most enclosures had lots of natural features. There were many things I liked - the Galapagos turtles and the Snowdon aviary spring to mind - and all told, I did enjoy my visit. But London imo falls tremendously short of what it could and indeed should be. There just seem to be too many missed opportunities and bad design decisions. To me, there was an apparent carelessness, indifference for aesthetics, and utter lack of attention to detail throughout the entire park. It's a pity really. Thinking of other zoos that might be suggested as being 'overrated', such as San Diego, Singapore, or Berlin (and indeed some of these have been suggested in this thread) I think there really is no contest.
I gotta go with London Zoo (circa 2011/12). I think it's been the ONLY zoo I've visited that I was disappointed by. There were some great parts - the area where small monkeys (my apologies for not knowing the species - I wasn't a biologist when I visited) could actually interact with the public was wonderful but overall the exhibits were tiny and it just felt outdated, particularly in terms of enrichment for the animals.
San Diego zoo, really don’t think the exhibits are good enough in the zoo. (Sdzsp on the other hand is amazing)
Serious question, which exhibits do you think are so bad? Other than the Bear Grottoes near Africa Rocks, Urban Jungle and some of Elephant Odyssey, I can’t really think of any bad exhibits. Personally I find that it isn’t overrated, it’s my favourite zoo, and one of, if not the, best in the world (although I agree that the Safari Park is great).
I think that this zoo is certainly rivalling for one of the best in the world (Contenders I would place it near are Henry Doorly, Bronx, Beauval, Leipzig and Singapore)
See, my position is that SDZ is a great zoo, and is world class, but I also think it is overrated. I mean, it doesn't take a lot of searching on this forum to find people declaring it the #1 zoo in the world and claiming it has no weak spots, even if it often contradicts their own standards of what makes a good zoo when looking at all the others... I find Bronx, Omaha, Berlin, Prague, and Chester to all be better than SDZ, out of zoos I've been to. ~Thylo
This paragraph is perhaps your best ever attempt to bring clarity to your thoughts, as in the past it has seemed at times as if you were anti-San Diego. I particularly like your first sentence. Would Bronx, Omaha, Berlin, Prague and Chester be your Top 5 zoos all-time? In that order? Now that is a list to salivate over...
Perhaps not in that order, but certainly my top 5, yeah. I think if I tried to organize it in order it'd be Bronx, Berlin, Prague, Chester, and then Omaha, but tbh that order would probably change day to day. ~Thylo
No, but my friend has and he showed me every single one of his 4000+ photos from it, so I did get a virtual trip to the zoo. Fine, I may not be in a place to say that it is one of the best, but from what I saw all of the exhibits were amazing (with the exception of the Wolverine exhibit )
If you would have visited you would have known that most enclosures are not amazing, most are fine, but nothing spectacular except for the tropical vegetation. Quite a few enclosures are too small and some are appalling... For looks Singapore Zoo scores high (as does Omaha), but I wouldn't call it one of the best zoos in the world...
San Diego zoo is one of the most popular zoos but I think many exhibits are to small. I never been there but I saw a online tour so I could be wrong. But from what I saw it was not the quality I’m used to. (Panda exhibit, elephant exhibit etc) I think cause of the hype around it that its overrated
Most of the enclosures at Omaha are of excellent size and design for their inhabitants. I would say that some of their primate enclosures (such as certain monkey enclosures in Gorilla Forest and Lied Jungle) and some in Desert Dome are perhaps on the small side, but for the most part the zoo gives their animals a lot of room to roam. ~Thylo
Which ones are appalling? Other than the wolverine and raccoon dog exhibits of course, which are not good at all, but certainly not much worse than many of the indoor tropical exhibits in American and European zoos.
I am on somewhat thin ice here, having never visited personally. But given that they are relatively recent developments quite some enclosures in Madagascar (why all-indoor enclosures....), Lied Jungle, Desert Dome are often not even on the small side, but far too small... Apart from those two I found both Pygmy hippo enclosures, the warthog enclosure and the Babiroussa enclosure extremely inadequate. Especially the wolverine enclosure is almost in a league of its own in being such a new development and being completely lacking in natural light and substrate... Today I saw some enclosures that were far worse in Tallinn, but those are Soviet-Union remnants.
Yeah the all-indoor lemur enclosures are odd. They have an all-indoor Sulawesi Crested Macaque enclosure as well. Again, primates are their weakest point imo. Still, I wouldn't say the indoor lemur enclosures are awful, though if they held more than pairs they probably would be. The three outdoor lemur enclosures are quite nice, even if the Ring-Tailed Lemur enclosure is horribly ugly. The indoor Aye-Aye and mouse lemur enclosures are actually pretty good as well, though not sure if there are photos of those since they're reverse lighting displays. Lied Jungle enclosures I found to be alright size-wise for the most part, with the only issues for me being the tapir and perhaps Pygmy Hippos. As for Desert Dome, the only enclosure I really found to be too small was the Bobcat. I'm not sure about all the animals, but I know some of the enclosures (such as the wildcat for example) have large off-show space that the animals can access when they want. It's certainly not a perfect zoo, and I do hope the primate exhibits in particular get facelifts as time goes on, but I'd still argue the zoo is definitely within the top 3-4 zoos in the US. Most of their outdoor enclosures are amazing for their species. ~Thylo
Oh and in Desert Dome the Yellow-Footed Rock-Wallaby enclosure is really bad, I forgot about that one. I'd hope they have a lot more off-show space but I have no idea for them. ~Thylo
