what is the best zoo in europe
- Thread starter tiger guy
- Start date
Not at all those building pieces were used as a demonstration in the DLC videos. I wouldn't use them in that way; they are meant to add decorative touches to your zoo rather than "build your own ethnographic village." I mean certain players like that kind of thing, but most zoo nerds wouldn't and think if it's not used in a utilitarian way for the zoo, it shouldn't exist. But I am grateful for the diversity of the scenery pieces because it unlocks many possibilities. Only these shouldn't ALL be used at once otherwise you aren't building a zoo.
During COVID period, the Chinese section of the zoo was peeling paint from what I could remember and looked pretty shabby. Also, they are building yet another Japanese ethno-section despite already having their own mini-Forbidden City...
Some of the animals look like they are crammed in artificial cultural buildings to be used as props and to signify "human ownership". For the visitor, trying to take photos it's not optimal. For the animals, they are probably bewildered why the place they are living in is pretty uncomfortable.
Why not use more natural looking rock instead?
White tiger in temple. Again, this is not a natural habitat for tigers so not ideal. Also, why is Pairi Daiza breeding already inbred white tigers? I hope for their sake they are crossing them out with brown tigers to introduce some much needed genetic diversity.
Another leopard in a temple.
Probably a better shot without the very distinct "Polynesian village" in the background.
Another "monkey temple"
Besides white tigers, I don't like the fact that elephants are still forced to give out rides and there are polar bear and walrus hotel rooms with direct underwater windows of polar bear and walrus pools. They can't swim without being watched 24/7. Same with brown bears who are terribly exposed with no caves so they can be watched 24/7 from hotel windows.
There's also so much wasted space. A mini-Forbidden City + fanciful recreation of a Chinese village, mini-Borobudur from Indonesia, mini-Angkor Wat, mini-Pagan from Burma, Polynesian village, African village, massive entrance that looks like the Vittorio Emanuele gallery from Milan, mock rice terraces, medieval Russian palaces, clearly the animals are competing for attention with the architecture in the minds of visitors which is not a good thing. Tiring and distracting to attention spans, it severely complicates the layout of the park, and increases the length of time visitors need to view the animals for no reason. If you are unfamiliar with the zoo, you don't know which buildings house important animals and which are mainly decorative. The cost of building such structures means higher admission prices and less money for conservation. If the park wants so much ethnographic stuff, they should just focus on doing that and not drag animals into it. Also, I need to remember that Pairi Daiza is a for-profit private zoo, so their choices make a lot of sense from that perspective.
Last edited:
I knew that any discussion involving Pairi Daiza would lead to some sort of argument, it surely has to be the most controversial high profile zoo in Europe. A for-profit zoo/architectural garden that values the guest experience above everything else, why else would such a zoo require grand displays to draw in visitors (which it does very well) if its animal habitats / welfare / conservation was one of the best in Europe.
Anyways this topic is always a open minded question, no single one person can define what makes a zoo the 'best'. What one says is an excellent guest experience with hotels, large windows to see animals at all times with architecture soaring as high as a skyscraper in the name of theming - is also a nightmare for someone who prefers seeing animals in a naturalistic environment where they feel immersed in the thick foliage as they turn a corner and see monkeys swinging through the canopy, they may not get guaranteed animal sighting for many habitats but they love the experience.
Anyways this topic is always a open minded question, no single one person can define what makes a zoo the 'best'. What one says is an excellent guest experience with hotels, large windows to see animals at all times with architecture soaring as high as a skyscraper in the name of theming - is also a nightmare for someone who prefers seeing animals in a naturalistic environment where they feel immersed in the thick foliage as they turn a corner and see monkeys swinging through the canopy, they may not get guaranteed animal sighting for many habitats but they love the experience.
I don’t think PD breeds their white tigers, or not at least within the last decade.
Also I am sorry for double posting but I thought I may as well answer the question asked in the thread.
For me I am always torn between Zoo Berlin and Prague. I was mesmerized by Zoo Berlin when I visited in 2014. Part of it because I was able to see some “basic” species I wasn’t able to before. In addition I was a sucker for the old architecture and the post stamp collection the zoo offered. My visit to Berlin was one of the happiest days in my life. But then I had an escapade last year which I visited Prague and revisited Berlin.
My visit to Prague Zoo was more enjoyable than my Berlin revisit. Prague’s newer exhibits at the time Rakos House and Darwin Crater demonstrates the zoo’s modernity. Prague also has Africa Up Close, which may be my favorite zoo area/exhibit of all time, along with many other interesting areas such as the outdated yet interesting combo that is the feline reptile house, the Indonesian jungle house which, and the giraffe barn where you could see the giraffes up close from head to toe. And the zoo has more projects to further improve the animal collection and its welfare. It is also a great place for those who love walking uphill. My only regret is that I never tried any if the food the zoo offers.
I guess my bias may be heading towards Prague as time passes… let’s see if my mind will change as both zoos keep on improving in the next few years.
For me I am always torn between Zoo Berlin and Prague. I was mesmerized by Zoo Berlin when I visited in 2014. Part of it because I was able to see some “basic” species I wasn’t able to before. In addition I was a sucker for the old architecture and the post stamp collection the zoo offered. My visit to Berlin was one of the happiest days in my life. But then I had an escapade last year which I visited Prague and revisited Berlin.
My visit to Prague Zoo was more enjoyable than my Berlin revisit. Prague’s newer exhibits at the time Rakos House and Darwin Crater demonstrates the zoo’s modernity. Prague also has Africa Up Close, which may be my favorite zoo area/exhibit of all time, along with many other interesting areas such as the outdated yet interesting combo that is the feline reptile house, the Indonesian jungle house which, and the giraffe barn where you could see the giraffes up close from head to toe. And the zoo has more projects to further improve the animal collection and its welfare. It is also a great place for those who love walking uphill. My only regret is that I never tried any if the food the zoo offers.
I guess my bias may be heading towards Prague as time passes… let’s see if my mind will change as both zoos keep on improving in the next few years.
i went to chester zoo recently and it is awsome
Chester Zoo. Having grown up visiting there I am extremely biased though! 
That said I've seen the place change over many years and Chester Zoo genuinely is better than it ever was. The worst exhibits I remember from childhood (lions and tigers in particular) have all been redone and are now just amazing. You really get the feeling only the very best will do for the animals. The conservation work is also more prominent than ever which is fantastic.
Outside of Chester I think the best zoo I've personally visited was Prague.
That said I've seen the place change over many years and Chester Zoo genuinely is better than it ever was. The worst exhibits I remember from childhood (lions and tigers in particular) have all been redone and are now just amazing. You really get the feeling only the very best will do for the animals. The conservation work is also more prominent than ever which is fantastic.
Outside of Chester I think the best zoo I've personally visited was Prague.
Neither the original lion or tiger enclosures were bad in the first place, they were just a bit more functional and ugly with the tall mesh. Right now I'd say the worst enclosure might be the elephants at this point, not bad but considering multiacre giant paddocks have come into fashion now it's getting behind the times slowly but surely. Either that or the indoor chimp enclosure which is a lot smaller than the fantastic ones for orangs. As far as I know, upgrades to both of these are in the plans for the future.Chester Zoo. Having grown up visiting there I am extremely biased though!
That said I've seen the place change over many years and Chester Zoo genuinely is better than it ever was. The worst exhibits I remember from childhood (lions and tigers in particular) have all been redone and are now just amazing. You really get the feeling only the very best will do for the animals. The conservation work is also more prominent than ever which is fantastic.
Outside of Chester I think the best zoo I've personally visited was Prague.
Edinburgh has seen better days to be honest, I wouldn't rank it highly compared to the other uk offerings.
yeah but i still like it
I'd say it's looking the best it has in quite a while to be honest. Certainly better than the 2000s when it had the tiny big cat enclosures and the awful polar bear enclosure. The additions of the Budongo trail, the new(ish) tiger exhibit and the giraffe enclosure have definitely improved the feel.
I wouldn't put it anywhere near a conversation of best zoo in Europe, but for a zoo constrained by its location, I'd say it is pretty good. And certainly better than it was 15-20 years ago.