Movement and function... same thing?

[nerdsforprez]

Hey everyone, just wanted to share an old MOC with ya’ll. Although this was build a while ago, I recently re-did the write-up and have never posted it on the forum. I never posted it because it is a relatively simple build and may not be very interesting to most. For such a large build and large piece count, there are less than 40 unique pieces used in the build, and no functions that we usually consider when we build with Technic.

However, I do think that this MOC may be a good conversation-starter. Usually, we consider “Technic functions” as things that move, or in defining functioning, we think it is synonymous with movement. However, I think that there can be functionality in a model with no movement. As is the case with this MOC.

Simple, with no aesthetic distraction, this MOC is simply a model of the framework of a popular building in the US. Check out the full write-up of the MOC on my page (signature block) for further details, but succinctly put, this build is scaled after the real thing, not just the project in total, but even the individual elements that comprise the whole structure’s frame. This leads me to my point. “Function” can be something provided that does not necessarily involve movement. Bridges, buildings, trusses, towers, etc. are all things that provide functionality with really no movement. Strength is a key component to these types of builds, and something that I think is somewhat underutilized here on the forum. Yes, these equal simple builds, but a wealth of information can be learned from them. Sariel’s book “Unofficial Lego Technic Building Guide” has many principles on building strong, which in my opinion is an important thing to consider when building with Technic and just as functional as moving parts.

Pics below. The whole write-up is here.... http://mocpages.com/moc.php/355109

[DrJB]

Very nicely done. Two questions:

1. How does this compare (size) against the one at the Children Museum in Navy Pier)

2. Does it have the glass windows as well?

[nerdsforprez]

Yea no, like I wrote in the write-up on this, I never meant to make this something aesthetically pleasing. I just wanted the structural frame. Just as will everyone, I have a budget and I have to be careful what I spend. Therefore, no glass planes or modeling to make it look like the real thing. I just wanted something that would fit the dimensions exactly, and more or less fit the bundled tubular design of the real thing. Even doing just the frame, this probably cost me 300-350$ dollars. Everyone loves studless, but there is certainly still room for studded bricks, because they are expensive! This was done years ago, and I actually calculated how much it would cost for me to build this today. By bricklink prices, I estimate around 400-425$ now.

[DrJB]

That is certainly a serious 'investment'. Nonetheless, the structure is very recognizable (nice thing).