Tom Dutton penguins were to be moved to a different enclosure on welfare grounds . The removal of the rubber textures on the floor and the new species of penguin ( Block , 2019 ), alongside ever more stringent animal welfare laws demanded a change of habitat for the animals . Lubetkin clearly considered the welfare of the animals , but perhaps his ideal of creating an architectural artifact became incompatible with providing suitable habitation .
A journal article from 1966 offers an insight into the primary concerns of Hugh Casson when the Elephant and Rhinoceros Pavilion was designed and unfortunately reveals little prioritisation for the welfare of the animals ; special reference is made to the performative layout of the scheme and the consideration of circulation and conditions for the visitor but none whatsoever for the wellbeing of the animals beyond access ( Casson & Conder , 1966 ). It is no wonder then that as of 2001 elephants have been absent from the enclosure ( BBC , 2001 ). The Giraffe house , constructed in 1836 remains fully functional to this day ( Reynolds , 2020 ), perhaps due to the primary function being led by the animals rather than an artistic or humancentric purpose .
The unsuitability of Casson and Lubetkin ’ s designs justifies the negative response that Browne has demonstrated towards Post-war architecture , despite his exaggeration . Browne ’ s disapproval of Postwar enclosures is further confirmed simply through his decision to include Lubetkin ’ s Penguin pool . The Penguins
14
Figure 9 - “ Zoo ”, Page 13 ( Browne , 1992 )