2011 LEGO Architecture News & Rumours

[Fuzzylegobricks]

Yes a no . This set is really simple it could have been designed in about 30 min.

Brothers-brick.com has a article on it.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Fuzzylegobricks

[Corioso]

Looks awesome! But funny and very simple.

[WhiteFang]

Thanks for sharing! First time seeing it, but certainly not as impressive as what I could hope for.

[Superkalle]

I have to agree with the rest of you - some buildings are just not cut out to me made in LEGO microscale since the scale is just too small or the parts just aren't there.

(For info, the Burj Khalifa is famous for being the tallest building in the world)

Some reference pics:

[LegoDad42]

Perhaps some dark grey mixed into it at the positions you see from the real pic might help?

I know I'm no expert builder by any means(or amateur at best), but at this first glance, it's kinda' like...yuck...and at what price?

[fff]

The only way this had some kind of value is that they made it in MAERSK blue... Disappointing...

[XimenaPaulina]

Thanks for sharing this find Mr Hobbles. This is the problem when creating something so huge in a such a small scale - the design will be gravely limited by the available existing LEGO parts, and in this case, the round 1x1 bricks are the 'best' solution to achieve the cylindrical shape of the 'columns' of the building. Yeah the final product isn't at all visually-appealing, but the question is, is there a better-looking solution?

[starstreak]

Aw man, is it just me or does this feel like a $20 set that's gonna cost alot more? I mean seriously, it looks too simple.

[Erik Leppen]

but the question is, is there a better-looking solution?

I can think of two better-looking solutions.

• Increase the scale
  
• Take another building

I mean, it's cool and all that this is the tallest building as of now, but does this set do it any justice? I don't think so.

I would guess that if the scale were doubled (and along with that the price increases eightfold), the resulting $200 set would recieve a lot more praise than the current design (Note: I'm not saying that it would be financially more attractive, because I don't know. I'm only talking about praise ;)).

Also, I think Lego shouldn't pick buildings just because they are tallest or whatever, but pick those that are suitable for recreation in Lego. And this particular tower surely isn't.

Personally I think the real architecture sets - Guggenheim, Fallingwater and that new house - are all much more interesting than those landmarks (but note I own neither).

[Arigomi]

This has got to be the most unstable Lego set ever!

It is actually a little more stable than it looks. Just a tiny bit. If you look at the stop motion video of the of build, you will see that the 1x1 round bricks with holes in the stud are slid onto 4H antenna pieces for strength. Unfortunately, doing this so many times can be a real hassle. You have to be extremely careful sliding them together because it is a very tight fit and you need to apply some pressure to do it. Apply too much pressure and you risk breaking the 4H antenna pieces.

I don't actually have this set but this technique is used in 3851 Atlantis Treasure. The stands for the microsub game pieces have you slide a 1x1 nose cone onto a 4H antenna. Since it isn't exactly the same, I tested the technique using a 1x1 round brick with a hole in the stud from my collection and got the same results. Thankfully the board game only requires you doing this 4 times. I shudder to think how many times you have to use this technique on 21008 Burj Khalifa.

[kris kelvin]

It`s simply awful.

The worst building from this fantastic line.

[aresze]

......looks like the box is more expensive than the model

replace the grey with transparent blue may look better

[Superkalle]

Yeah the final product isn't at all visually-appealing, but the question is, is there a better-looking solution?

And suddenly, the seed for a EB contest was born

[Plastic Nurak]

Someone in TLC thinks we're all idiot . I hope to see this new set collcting dust on the shelves.

[Aanchir]

Thanks for sharing this find Mr Hobbles. This is the problem when creating something so huge in a such a small scale - the design will be gravely limited by the available existing LEGO parts, and in this case, the round 1x1 bricks are the 'best' solution to achieve the cylindrical shape of the 'columns' of the building. Yeah the final product isn't at all visually-appealing, but the question is, is there a better-looking solution?

Personally, looking at the photos Superkalle posted, replacing the 1x1 round bricks with 1x1 round plates could give it more of the "layered" appearance it has in real life. Then again, that would make the cost even more prohibitive, and would prevent reinforcement of the columns on the inside (unless you used the ones from LEGO Games in which case it begins getting ridiculous).

Personally, I think this set is pretty well-designed, but like most of the Architecture sets it just doesn't appeal to me. The only one that appealed to me greatly so far has been the White House set, and that's perhaps because its architecture just looks most interesting to me at the shrunken scale Architecture sets tend to use. Fallingwater is a close competitor, though.

[fred67]

Well... it does seem a bit uninspired, and it's the first one that, right off the bat, I was thinking "maybe I'll just do it from pieces I have instead of buying this."

But I have every set up until (not including) the Farnsworth House... and I will tell you that I do not believe this building is any worse. The Farnsworth House is an interesting house in real life, but in a LEGO set it's as uninspired as this one. The only saving grace is the furniture. I don't see how everyone got all ga-ga over it.

In fact, most of these sets are not particularly notable at all; the Empire State Building and Sears Tower are nice looking, but incredibly simple builds.

Wanting to be a completist, though, I will probably go ahead and get both Farnsworth and this. Eventually. When I feel like there's nothing better to buy.

[jonwil]

I hope that we see more Architecture line sets from outside of the USA.

I would give ANYTHING to see a famous Australian building replicated as a LEGO set (the Sydney Opera House seems like a fairly obvious choice given how famous it is)

[XimenaPaulina]

And suddenly, the seed for a EB contest was born

"Build a Lego Architecture Set" - I like the sound of that. (and a great way for talented builders to show TLG designers how it should be done)

[Legoless]

I agree totally with the firse responder, Clone O'Patra- a very underwhelming piece.

Fallingwater, the Taj Mahal, and Tower Bridge were much more impressive. Lego really don't need to model every landmark building on the planet- they should be more selective and only cover those buildings that look impressive in microscale- which this does not.

[fred67]

Fallingwater, the Taj Mahal, and Tower Bridge were much more impressive. Lego really don't need to model every landmark building on the planet- they should be more selective and only cover those buildings that look impressive in microscale- which this does not.

Well... the architecture line is different, created by a third party (see Brick Structures); the Taj Mahal and Tower Bridge are not part of that line. As far as I can tell, they are used for cross promotion... sold initially in the gift shops at the locations they represent.

The first few sets were equally as simple and, frankly, not impressive... but I got a few (signed) sets anyway, and I like the series as a whole.

There also seems to be two "types" of models... I don't know how I would call them, but one is the smaller ones, like Sears Tower, Empire State Building, and the Seattle Space Needle (among others); the other category is more detailed - Falling Water, White House... all of the smaller ones are pretty uninspired and overly simple. The only really interesting small one is the Seattle Space Needle, although after you look at you still think it's too expensive.

[TheBrickHitHouse]

I actually laugh at anyone daft enough to buy this. Does Lego even care about this line?

[Blackknight112]

Wow, what a poor set

[Aanchir]

I actually laugh at anyone daft enough to buy this. Does Lego even care about this line?

Yes. Hence why they don't ignore the conventions by which the line is defined when designing sets. If they wanted to make the buildings super-detailed, they'd release them as D2C sets like the Taj Mahal. As it is, the point of the theme is small scale models made using largely basic parts.

Honestly, I can understand if people don't like this set. I don't like this set. But it'd be nice if people would look at these sets with an open mind rather than ignoring the reality of why the LEGO Architecture line exists in the first place.

Remember that not everyone appreciates sets for the same reason, or based on the same values. Suggesting that they should is just small-mindedness. And suggesting that people should all buy sets for the same reasons as you do is the byproduct of the mingling of a small mind and a large ego.

[brickmack]

Very unstable. I can't tell for sure from the video, but it looks like it could be stabilized a lot more by putting a technic rod through the center of it and changing the design a bit right? LEGO really should have chosen a different building for this.

Someone in TLC thinks we're all idiot . I hope to see this new set collcting dust on the shelves.

To be honest, I don't see why people buy any of the architecture sets anyway. Even including the money they have to pay to the designers of the real buildings, around here most of these sets are 2 or 3 times more expensive than a set from another theme with a comparable amount of parts, and most of them have REALLY simple designs. Most of them don't have any particularly rare parts or colors either, other than the printed tile with the name of the building, so the parts could easily be taken out of most people's collections, or bought on bricklink. LEGO should have just put the instructions online for free I think. </rant>

[fred67]

I guess some of us have more money than sense.

I have all the sets and I don't regret it; they are on display in my office at work and are great conversation items. Yes, I could build most of them from parts I have, but I also get the books and keep the boxes, as well (I don't keep the boxes of other sets). Some of earlier sets I have autographed copies of.

Since the sets are relatively rare (1 or 2 a year), it's not that much of a financial burden to be able to have an original set.

It is true, though, that I am getting more disappointed as time goes on, but this Burj Khalifa set is no worse (in fact, it's quite a lot better) than some of the earlier ones - the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, and John Hancock Center, for three. If it's offered at the same price point as those then it'll be a good value by comparison.

EDIT: BTW, I don't think people understand why these cost so much more... the architect who built them has to get his cut, and the building owners own the trademark, so these are like doubly licensed sets.

Edited April 29, 2011 by fred67