I think both are equally deserving but unfortunately their decision making is no doubt influenced by the fact London's Lions are higher profile than Whipsnade's Hippos. I think the idea of moving the Lions to the Mappins area, which obviously isn't going to happen anyway, would mean as much of a major overhaul/building work/cost as even a brand new enclosure constructed adjacent to/on their existing site. There are/would be no facilities for indoor viewing by the public on the Mappins either. What I hope will happen is a decent renovation of one or more of the existing enclosures- ex Tigers? to get away from that awful mildewed 'damp' feeling the existing Lion enclosure has, as Sooty described. Something like Whipsnade's Lion display but more landscaped to give it an arid feel, would do fine for me.
I suspect most of those thinking it's a great idea for the lions to take over more of the area at the potential loss of more carnivore (currently other mammals too) are also deluded enough to think London is still one of the top 5 zoos in the UK ! IMHO it isn't & certainly not for joe public!
I'm not deluded about anything. But I want London Zoo to be the best zoo it can be. And I think a redevelopment of an area that is feeling seriously run down with a random mish mash of species is a step in the right direction. The only other carnivore species currently in this area is the servals. There are sulawesi macaques, francois langurs and the gibbons. Plus the wading bird aviary. That's it. So the zoo is hardly sacrificing a vast array of species for the lions. I think it's important to note that we don't know what will happen to these species, they may well move elsewhere in the zoo and who knows what else may be arriving. Of course we will have the same discussion everytime London does anything but I guess that's a good thing, I am glad that people are passionate about it regardless.
I feel like a small child, being admonished for making a facetious remark! ....and again here too! As a teacher, I'd use this sort of phrase as a way of politely saying that a pupil was a pain-in-the-neck. Anyway, on to the discussion.... A very good thing, surely! There is a place for utilitarian, functional zoo architecture, but Regent's Park is surely not it. When cheap and cheerful enclosures are built there - such as those for the birds used in the birds of prey show - they stand out like a sore thumb. What would work in a field outside Doncaster, for example, isn't really enough for this zoo. Of course! Every zoo needs to be treated as an individual establishment, as a place with its own history, its own market, and its own set of circumstances. London is not Berlin, and London Zoo is not Berlin Zoo. I don't see any contradiction in applauding the London Zoo of 2013 and the Berlin Zoo of 2013. I'd even applaud some of those functional UK zoos that have never felt the touch of a landscape architect - but I wouldn't want London Zoo to look like them! I don't think my p-o-v is an especially radical one.... ...and others do share the opinion (which isn't, of course, to suggest that it's the only opinion which is valid!). If London were to build a Pilsen-style exhibit with 'support' from aviaries of Asian birds, and small mammals, I'd be thrilled; even without such support, though, I won't be mourning the redevelopment of the zoo's most unlovely part, which reminds me of a shopping centre in a 'new town' such as Crawley or Basildon. And on recent evidence, they'll build something that is attractive, thoughtful - and appealing to Pipaluk's... ...who, if they don't like London Zoo (and I think gates of a million each year would contradict this claim) certainly won't like it less when the Lion Terraces are improved. On a separate note, the Lion Terraces, like the Sobell Monkey Pavilion, were designed by John Toovey. In the early 1980s he invited me to spend a day with him at the zoo, to discuss zoo architecture. He could not have been more charming, and his encouragement really kindled my nascent interest in zoos. I always feel slightly guilty having such negative feelings about the buildings he designed - but, I suppose, these were very much of their time.
I don't think visitor numbers alone are a judge of how good the zoo is. London has the advantage of having around 20% of the Uk population within a 15 mile radius and being in a major tourist centre. Substute the collections from say Blackpool, Dudley or Banham to Regents Park & they would probably still get a million visiitors! Swap Chester, Colchester or Whipsnade's collections and they'd probably bring in far more visitors.
Av interesting point - but I'm not sure I wholly agree, even if, clearly, London Zoo has population advantages that would not be shared by a collection in Inverness or the Welsh Atlantic coast. When London Zoo has been looking really desolate its visitor numbers have fallen, significantly, below a million. Although there are a lot of people nearby, Regent's Park is not, necessarily, the easiest place to reach, with private transport being for the very few, and public transport being expensive and, in some ways, quite inconvenient (a family group with pushchairs and picnics, coming from East London, is going to find the journey by tube then foot awkward and cumbersome). There are more people, but there are vastly more things to do - rural Norfolk doesn't quite match London for draws on a potential visitor's time! If London Zoo had gone under when that was a real danger, in the 1990s, the capital would have been left with the Battersea Park Zoo - not the San Diego Wild Animal park, but it does have lemurs, otters, monkeys, and so on - and could, potentially, be expanded further. Would that place ever get visitor numbers even sniffing towards those found further north in the city? In my opinion, the zoo is doing well to achieve about a million visitors each year. According to VisitEngland, in 2012 (a bad year, due to awful weather and the impact of the Olympics during what would have been the zoo's busiest fortnight), it was the 8th most-visited paid-for attraction in London, but an indication of what they are up against is that there are about 10 places that are free to enter that get vast visitor figures (for example, the National History Museum pulls in an extraordinary 5 million visits each year). Regional Attractions 2012 : VisitEngland Corporate Site Of course, visitor numbers are never going to be a definitive gauge of a place's quality, but they do tell us something about the extent to which the general public feel a place is worth visiting, due to its marketing, its reputation, and their previous experience of it.
Whilst I accept some of your points may be valid, i cannot agree with all of them. I know it is not necessarily a fair gauge, but google any zoo you like and almost all of them have a higher review rating score than London. Some, e.g Colchester(highest i could find) , Chester , Whipsnade & Howletts are much higher, even Twycross & Marwell are better! If you believe that the people living in the commuter belt north of London who would traditionally have gone to London for their day at the zoo, now flock to Colchester, solely because it's easier by car, that's fine. But they wouldn't have done that 30 years ago when Colchester was a poor relation! The fact is those people (non zoo-nerds) choose Colchester because they think it's a better zoo! I live in that area & haven't come across anyone who thinks otherwise. I don't say that because i have a dislike of London zoo, i love the place & went there much more often as a child. But that was 30 years ago.
All the more reason to get rid of the remaining tired areas lacking coherent focus - such as the lion terraces.
Possibly, as large new exhibits like Tiger Territory & gorilla kingdom probably do appeal to the public. But at what expense to the collection as a whole. One of the criticisms i regularly hear is that there aren't many animals there now. TT was an excellent development(if expensive) & incorporated recently under used areas well without losing any other species, i just fear this may not be the case with the lions.
Its always grated on me rather that these Monkeys are kept in enclosures built for Cats. Virtually all visitors will have already seen 'the Monkeys' in Gorilla Kingdom area soon after entering the Zoo and so probably wouldn't expect to see more here. Its clear they are really surplus at the current ZSL and if they can't be exhibited better, should be moved out completely.
It's been said elsewhere that these primates could be moved elsewhere in the zoo or to Whipsnade(short on primates). That would leave this area for more cat/other carnivores, which the zoo is badly lacking!
If it were me, I would either redistribute the Sulawesi Macaques to other Zoos, or relocate them as a group to Whipsnade. The gibbons should be given a proper exhibit in their own right. The Francois Langurs are a bit difficult- they are a more recent and interesting acquisition but certainly deserve something better exhibit-wise- failing that they shouldn't keep them I don't think.
I recently visited the zoo with my aunt (sounds very Edwardian I know) and she, not a zoo person but someone who goes to Chester Zoo once every couple of years, commented on the lion terraces. She said it was gloomy and dated. A friend of mine once said it reminded her of Archway station (meaning damp and concrete and not very attractive). Not a scientific representation I know but an indication that it is not the most attractive part of the zoo anymore.
I haven't got the time for a full re-appraisal of this issue. Nonetheless, I would suggest that the Lion Terraces look a mess because they've lost their taxonomic integrity. They were built to house cats, and it does bear repeating that, Tiger apart, they have done pretty well. Ocelot, Sand Cat, Serval, Caracal, Lion, Leopard and Jaguar have all been bred there, as have Red Panda. I also wish that those who cheer on expensive revamps of still serviceable buildings at London would like to explain whether they want so much unused space at Whipsnade, and whether they're happy with the state of the Hippo accommodation there. And whether they want the Mappin Terraces at London to be holding kangaroos and emus forever more. Some might suggest that all these are more immediate issues - and let's not even talk about the Aquarium, although we should. And some might find an incongruity in a certain poster's applause for the Alfred Brehm House in East Berlin and his dislike of the Lion Terraces...
I'm not sure why! One is a great old building in which an enormous range of animals (not just carnivores) can be seen, quite brilliantly. The other a charmless maze of steps, concrete and wire mesh in which, even when a good collection of cats was on view, good viewing was pretty elusive. And besides - what is good for one zoo is not necessarily right for another. If I head to my local Italian restaurant, I want to have a pizza; I'd be fairly disappointed to find pizza on the menu when I head to the Hove Tandoori. And I like the aquarium! As for Whipsnade - yes, lots of empty space; yes, possibly a bit dull. But I'd suggest that the investment there over the past decade or so has been as great as any time over the place's history.
sooty, you really are a law unto yourself. The Alfred Brehm House is NOT old. It was built in 1963, a year that I have strong personal reasons as not wanting to see consigned to antiquity! And the leopard/jaguar/puma accommodation there is on a par with the 1876 Lion House at London - converted for parrots it wouldn't look out of place in the 21st century, used for large cats it harks back to the 19th. I am perplexed by your love of having a big, diverse collection in Berlin(two in fact) and your espousal of developments in London that would make that impossible. And I know that you like the RP Aquarium, but even its mother (!) might concede that the whole complex is in dire need of a massive capital injection. Each to his own, but I find myself truly nonplussed by thought processes that can defend the outgoing Director of Berlin on the one hand and the present Director of London on the other.
