Whilst I fully understand and often argue the point that zoos need money to survive, at the end of the day it's a balancing act. I'm presuming that, given recent changes, London is financially stable nowadays and would question whether the extra money gained from the lodges is really worth abandoning more animal enclosure space for? If they really, really need the lodges stick 'em on some unused non-animal space such as one of the lawns (I'm always frustrated that the large lawns remain empty in a zoo short of space).
Agree almost 100%, except that as previously stated, I feel there is no place for these lodges at London, they sell out at Whipsnade, so why not put more there? They are more suited to there and there is plenty of space, plus less cost involved e.g staffing. They will have to build a shower block at London too - more space gone!
I am guessing that the cost of these will be extortionate and will exclude all but the super-rich. The zoo already hires out space for corporate events and celebrity weddings. Many of the clients will not be particularly bothered about seeing the animals. They will just pay to boast to their friends that they had spend a night in the zoo. Maybe they will have a guided tour, but most of their time will be spent wining and dining.
