Is Having VR on a 55-200mm Lens Important?

I have a Nikon D5100 and am looking at getting a 55-200mm lens. However the difference in price between VR and non VR can be ridiculous!

Is VR necessary on a 55-200mm lens?

I'm not really looking to do much with the lens apart from a few zoo shots and architectural pictures and I like to think I have a nice steady hand.

What are your thoughts etc?

The VR is extremely useful, especially nearing the 200mm mark. Obviously if you use a tripod you don't need it. I myself have a rather unsteady hand and the VR has visibly improved my photography.
Money is better spent on lenses than on cameras: you can keep using lenses for years to come. I went for the extra $100 or so and I don't regret it.

Yup. I can shoot a 1-second exposure with my 18-200mmG VR hand-held.

I have a number of lenses, including a 70-200, and none of them have VR. It is nice, especially in lower light conditions with static subjects. However, you can get very similar results with the low tech and lox cost use of a monopod or tripod. The rule of thumb is that you can't shoot slower than 1/focal length. For a crop camera at 200mm, than ends up as 1/300 sec or so. In reality, I find you can double that, so with a steady hand you can shoot at 1/150. With some sort of bracing, you can easily do 1/60. With VR, you can get up to 2 stops of speed. You decide how often you are going to need to shoot slower than 1/60 at 200mm. If it is a lot, then spend the $. For me, it is not worth it.

It is important to some, but not to others.

I grew up without VR so I learned how to steady a camera. If you have not learned those techniques, then VR can help.

Yes, it's worth it. Check these demos

Yes, it's worth it.

Many techniques that one can use for lenses without VR to obtain steady shots are not rendered obsolete by VR (or vice versa), but can work in addition to it for steady shots in even more difficult conditions.