Planning a trip to London Zoo to see the animals? Take some time out to look at the brilliant architecture too, writes
Dan Carrier
THEY need care and attention and people flock to London Zoo to see them: but they are not furry creatures and they are not attracting animal lovers.
Instead, the Zoological Society of London, based in Regent’s Park, is a haven for architectural fanciers.
With two Grade I and eight Grade II listed buildings on site, visitors are not just coming to see the monkeys and lions, they are coming to see fine examples of British architecture.
But as well as attracting the crowds, it causes headaches for zoo staff: one of the biggest problems they face is how to marry 21st-century conservation programmes with buildings designed when the animals were there to be gawped at, rather than to further our knowledge of the animal kingdom and help save species from extinction.
For Society director Professor Chris West, the challenge of managing a modern zoo on the site of a Victorian menagerie is part of the charm of the place.
The gardens were laid out by Decimus Burton between 1826 and 1841, based on the Paris Jardin des Plantes.
Wandering through the Squirrel Monkey enclosure – a new attraction – Prof West explained what they were trying to achieve. The monkeys have an outdoor pen that visitors enter. A fence with a mild electric current topping it stops the primates wandering too far – otherwise there are no bars keeping them in and they have mature trees to hang about in. It is a very different enclosure to the traditional cages adorned with scaffolding and tyres previous generations would be kept in.
Prof West said: “This is typical of what we are trying to achieve. We have to think innovatively because of the historic nature of the site. Conservation is our mission and that means finding new leases of life for old buildings, without damaging their historical integrity.”
The best-known example of listed architecture in 36-acre park is Berthold Lubetkin’s Penguin Pool.
But it is no longer suitable for its original use. His design was groundbreaking in its use of reinforced concrete – but it was not so good for the birds.
Prof West added: “Lubetkin used white concrete that was meant to mimic an Antartic wasteland. But the penguins we kept there are from the shores of South Africa – which is not covered in white concrete. When we moved them to an other enclosure so we could spruce up the place, the keepers immediately noticed a change in their behaviour.”
Given gravel and sand, they began to burrow – and then pair up and mate.
“They were much happier,” explains Prof. West. “It underlined how important it was to mimic their wild habitats. It meant we couldn’t put them back and we would have to find a new use for the pool.”
Black and white porcupines now exercise up and down the two ramps that used to be a diving board for the flightless birds. But the aesthetics haven’t been completely overlooked.
“Their colouring make a good contrast to the Lubetkin design,” he says.
It is an issue that occurs through out the park. The Roundhouse, built in 1932-3 by the Tecton firm of architects – who Lubetkin worked for – was built for gorillas. It is still used for primates – just smaller ones. Ring-tailed Lemurs have made it their home.
And this, according to Prof West, is the answer to using the buildings in a 21st-century setting.
He said: “We use them for smaller animals than what they were originally designed for.”
And his views are echoed by architects. Simon Foxell, chair of the London region of the Royal Institute of British Architects, visits the zoo regularly for inspiration.
He said: “There is a fine collection and architects go for the buildings rather than the animals.
“One very much wants the quality of the zoo’s buildings to persist in to the future – but how to do it a where caring for the animals welfare is paramount, when its accepted they need more space – well, it’s a massive challenge to achieve this.”
His personal favourite is the Penguin Pool – it is, he says, a perfect example of 1930s thought.
He said: “It is an incredible engineering feat – with our modern ways, you forget they built this with primitive methods.
“The use of reinforced concrete creates a feeling of architecture in motion. It is part of an optimistic view of the future, and it has the ethos of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. The two interlocking ramps, built without support – it is fabulous.”
He also points out Cedric Price’s aviary – “it has a real quality of achieving real space in an enclosed area, it feels as if you are not cramped in there” – and Hugh Casson’s Elephant House to show how in the recent past the zoo has kept true to its groundbreaking of use of architecture.
He added: “They have commissioned great buildings from Victorian times through to Lubetkin and present day. That is the challenge they have set themselves.”
There is one building that is still used for its original purpose – and it is one of the oldest. Decimus Burton’s giraffe house, built in 1836, has three of the animals inside – and they are happy.
He constructed a home to mimic its intended occupants’ stature. Based on a classical Roman design, it has five-metre high doors leading to an outside pen.
And the Victorian buildings, which include the reptile house with its three stone cobras standing guard over the doors, have an added advantage.
Sparrow numbers in London have dropped sharply in recent years – but in the zoo there is a population of around 150. They nest under the eaves of the older buildings and the zoo encourages them by putting up nesting boxes.
The Mappin Terraces – popularly known as Bear Mountain – is the landmark that dominates the northern sky line. It was built in 1913 and used a revolutionary concrete design, which Mr Foxell explains is like spraying papier mache on to a wire frame.
It no longer has bears wandering up and down it. They were replaced by mountain goats in the 1960s. But even they’ve been moved now for health and safety reasons. Its use for keeping animals is limited, so the zoo is left with a monolithic fake mountain.
Prof West admits it is a headache. “The structural engineering and underpinning is novel and therefore interesting, but its not suitable for what it was designed for,” he explains.
“We wouldn’t want to demolish it but it costs a fortune to look after it.”
Mr Foxell agrees: it is a feature of the zoo he particularly likes. He said: “It is vulnerable to wear and tear but it is a fantastic thing to build a whole mountain in Regents Park and for it still to be standing, after being used by animals and people for so long. It must be cherished.”