ShaydDeGrai

I'd take this one step further and say that the only demarcation line that matters is whether or not we, as individual chose to embrace the label. It is not for me to judge who is or isn't a "true" AFOL. It is for each of us to decide, "am I an AFOL or not?" and for the rest of us to respect that decision. I have a friend who is an avid collector of all things Star Wars and has nearly all of the UCS models under glass in his collection and a second copy of each kept mint in sealed boxes - but he doesn't consider himself an AFOL because the fact that they are Lego mean nothing to him. He identifies as a fan of Star Wars, not Lego despite having spent thousands of dollars buying and hundreds of hours assembling kits. I know someone else who doesn't own any Lego (his mom gave away his disused collection when he went off to college years earlier) but he loved the Lego movie, loved Nathan's Art of the Brick exhibit, goes to adult night at the Lego Discovery Center just to see the models and is a regular visitor at BrickFair events. He doesn't build, he doesn't collect, but he loves seeing other people's MOCs and considers himself an AFOL (or as he puts it "An executive AFOL") TLG isn't making any money off of him (at least not compared to what they got from my Star Wars Fan friend) but he cares much more about the brand and the AFOL community - who am I to say who's the "real" AFOL and who isn't? Drawing such lines in the sand is never good for a community. I'm older than dirt (even have the badge) so I remember when sci-fi wasn't cool and there was no Star Wars (Lego or otherwise). The Sci-fi community in those days was a very accepting place; it didn't matter if you were a fan of Dr Who, or The Time Tunnel, or Captain Scarlet, or Star Trek, or Outer Limits; (we didn't really even notice if you were gay, straight, black, white, Quaker or atheist for that matter) there were so few of us and we were so far outside the popular mainstream that we couldn't afford to dismiss anyone who wanted to join the club. The success of Star Wars really changed that. Good natured debates and hypothetical mash-ups devolved into nasty and derisive bids for "elite, true fan" status. In a fairly short period of time the fan community fractured (or at least the parts that I saw did) and went from being a generally open, accepting, safe place for people who like Sci-Fi to divided camps of people more interested in belittling other peoples' taste in sci-fi rather than celerating the genre and elevating the community as a whole. And that was BEFORE we had web forums to actively flame and troll each other. So, I'm always VERY CAUTIOUS whenever debates flirt with the question of who is or isn't a "true" fan because the premise of the question itself is a slippery slope where everyone comes out slimier in the end. Now if we go back to the topic at hand, I think we risk personalizing the article too much, we see "adult" and in our minds we think "AFOL" but those are different things. "Adult" implies a certain age, level of maturity, manual dexterity, income and obligations. "AFOL" is more of a lifestyle choice, set of values, a particular passion/motivation that non-AFOLs lack. TLG can certainly try to relate better with the AFOL community (through fan events, ambassador network, etc) but, shy of explicitly including a survey question like "Do you consider yourself an AFOL?", they really can't differentiate a sale to an "adult" from a sale to an "AFOL" When I read over the debates of the past few pages over the implications of a report that 10% of revenue came from sales to adult consumers, MY first thought is that it implies that 90% of revenue came from sales targeted at teens and younger. Ten percent is a good sized chuck, literally millions of dollars, but it's just the icing, without the cake, it doesn't get you very far, so TLG's first priority should always be to bake a good cake first and worry about the icing later. That said, there has certainly been more effort made to make grow the adult revenue chunk in recent years. I see this in the number of larger kits, the prominence of certain themes (Architecture, assorted Ideas IPs, licensed Technic models, etc.) that are largely meaningless to young kids but resonate with an older audience, and clearly "adult pricing" of some of the Star Wars UCS offerings of late. These aren't really aimed at AFOLs so much as just an adult audience. Lego designers haven't forgotten about AFOLs though, I recall Jamie Berard at one event came out and said "I know most of you are going to build this once and then scrap it for parts, so I made this in Earth Blue and I included 20 of this fairly new part, finally available in Sand Yellow, to get more of these things in circulation." He was talking to a room full of MOC'ers and he wanted us to know he'd listened to us and, where he had some leeway in the design (regardless of the complexity or subject matter of the kit) he was trying to give us what we'd asked for. This is really emblematic of the TLG as a whole coming around to the notion that a good idea may originate from anywhere, which is really a reversal for them. For decades, TLG defended its position that if it wasn't developed in-house, an idea had no merit (and conversely, if they thought of it, it must have been good) and it took flirting with bankruptcy to break that mindset. How much money has TLG brought in because an architect finally convinced them that the garage-made architecture kits he'd been selling out of the trunk of his car could be a successful adult oriented line. Where would Mindstorms be if hackers at MIT, Tufts and Stanford hadn't thrown away Lego's original software, hacked the RCX and convinced Lego to embrace the robotics community? Compared to the first forty years of Lego, it's a wonder that Cuusoo existed at all, let alone that Ideas is now releasing higher end sets like the Saturn V, Stranger Things, and the Old Fishing Shack. Adult sales are still just the icing on the cake for TLG as a whole, but it's nice to know they've noticed us.

Okay, so I just finished building this set last night and it's a nice little build; the problem is that "little" really does describe it. The facade of both structures is lovely; I liked the grandfather clock and the overstuffed easy-chair. The brick-built spiral stairs were a refreshing change of pace from yet another instance of "the staircase piece." But it just didn't _FEEL_ like a Modular to me; it felt more like a couple Creator 3-in-1 houses. There is some interesting stuff going on with the building facades but nothing about it screamed "expert builder" to me (and the other three walls are basically a box, not exactly pushing the boundaries of basic building there). I think I would have liked it better if it had just been a full width bookstore (with a cafe and reading area on the ground floor, that's fine - and realistic these days) and more interior details. I could have done without the townhouse, but if it's going to be there at all, the basement should be tall enough for a minifig to stand in and the whole thing should have an extra story. As I said, nice details, okay look by itself, but the building experience just didn't feel right for our annual modular and the finished product looks a bit puny. The 10228 Haunted House from Monster Fighters and 75827 GhostBusters Firehouse Headquarters felt more like Modular "building experiences" than this did. No offense to the designer intended, but I'm a bit disappointed.

This raises an interesting alternative. I could totally get behind the idea of a 32-wide, three story, single building modular each January and second, smaller but equally complex (building technique & detail-wise) 16 wide release each summer. The summer release would clearly have to be more sophisticated and have the same look and feel of a "normal" modular release to qualify as a Creator Expert set and not just another Creator 3-in-1 house or City offering, but it would allow collectors more options to draw from in laying out their modular street scenes and, at a price point that reflects the smaller footprint, it might open up the line of Modulars to more people for whom $170+ is just too much to spend on a single kit.

I find it a bit ironic that, when people like the scale and design of a modular, they buy one, build it and move on. When people are unhappy with the design or scale, they buy multiple copies of the set as a ready supply of matching bricks so they can add extra stories or make grander MODs. In the end, they wind up spending more money on (and bumping the sales figures of) the modulars they take issue with than they do on the ones they like out of the box. - sigh -

I'm a bit torn. Part of me really likes this for it's nostalgia value and takes me back to the trains I actually played with back in the day; the rest of me looks at this and realizes how far Lego Trains have come. I think it would have been cooler to have a "Then and Now" themed anniversary set (or pair of sets of you're trying to keep the price down): one engine like this using only parts and techniques that were available 40 years ago and the same class of engine done using the current palette of bricks and advanced SNOT techniques that have brought so much realism and fidelity to modern offerings. Does anyone know if this set is going to be a "for sale" item or a GwP give-away (the latter option making it much more appealing to me)?

Have you considered getting cats (or a toddler)? I often build according to the instructions and then leave assembled until the powers-that-be (those being small curious hands and/or rambunctious felines) inflict enough damage such that it's easier to scrap for parts than repair (my cats did more damage to the Death Star II than the Rebel Alliance did and my daughter turned the Corner Garage into a one story building with some stray animals living on a pile of rubble.)

I've got a few hundred unopened sets and I'm getting sick of having no free time to build them. I should have seen this coming when I put the 3739 Blacksmith shop set (the first set I didn't at least crack open the day I got it) on my shelf and told myself, "I'm a little busy today, I'll do this later." Eighteen years later, I've since moved twice, changed jobs twice, bought a house, gotten married, had a kid and I still have that kit in storage. What's your excuse?

At least in my case "hate" is probably too strong a word to describe the new program - "dislike," "disappointed by" and "irritated by" summarize my feelings better. I've been a "VIP" holder since the days when we used to fill our wallets with little loyalty cards that they stamped with mini-fig heads so I've participated in several iterations of what Lego thinks it is to earn "VIP" rewards. For my time/money/energy, this latest revision is pretty pointless, it creates hurtles (granted most of those are low) to getting cash rewards and makes a big deal out of offering you the chance to "redeem rewards" for a lot of non-brick minutia that, were I running the TLG, I'd probably just write off as advertising and give away free at store events or as unexpected GwP bonuses. I just don't see the value added (from a consumer standpoint) in differentiating a $20 reward valid in the store versus a $20 reward for on-line purchases - twenty Lego bucks is twenty Lego bucks whether I spend it on-line or in person, why should I have to decide ahead of time? For that matter, why should I have to "decide" at all, they still haven't integrated the whole VIP rewards scheme into their web presence (separate login, separate cookies, etc.) Again, were I running TLG, this would be a high priority, if I know who the user is at S@H (or if they self identify in the store), I should know if they are a VIP member and how many points they have, and when they go to check out, the system should be smart enough to offer to redeem all or part of their points for them on the spot. Other reward systems have been doing this for years (granted some of those impose further (occasionally inconvenient) restrictions for fraud prevention - such as points can only be used on orders that ship to the address of record or a physical card is required for in-store application) but somehow TLG thinks they have "improved" your shopping experience by bouncing you over to their reward center to buy a voucher so you can come back and apply it to your shopping cart during checkout. It doesn't really matter how simple or successful those extra steps are, the fact that a menial, invasive, clerical task was pushed onto the user when the system had all the information to perform the operation transparently is just bad UX design. As for non-voucher rewards, as I said, pretty pointless. Coloring sheets and posters? TLG would get more good will out of just giving that stuff away to any kid who wants it, VIP or not. Tickets to discovery centers and parks? They _used_ to give that stuff away, or at least BOGO or "Kids go free with adult ticket purchase" variations; at one point it seemed like every other shipment I got from S@H had at least one coupon like that in it. A second chance to get a past GwP set or some cool exclusive (SDCC, regional promotional stuff, etc)? Now that's cool, pity it feels like that whole thing was something of a bait and switch; getting one of the rare brick-based rewards makes you feel more like a lottery winner than a VIP customer. Purely by chance, I used most of my VIP points just before the new system kicked in so I have a pretty good picture of what my spending habits have been since this all started. I've got a little over 26k points right now which might sound like a lot to some, but to me, it means they've lost a lot of my business to Amazon. Part of that is a function of GwP options (which I haven't been overjoyed with of late - too many non-set items (totes, lunch boxes, posters, minifigs, keyrings, etc.)) and part has just been a VIP program that feels neither "person"-al nor "very important". Amazon gives me 25% off, free shipping, cash back on their credit card, and keeps track of what I already own so it gives me better recommendations and doesn't try to sell me the same thing twice. When being "just another customer" over there is a more "rewarding" experience than being a "VIP" over here, we have a problem. I don't "hate" the new system, but with the resources available to TLG, they should really have done better even if they're not an Amazon goliath.

Very true, and I don't begrudge them for having such an option for things like building robots. I think where the new PU system falls flat however (aside from TLG's questionable software record in general) is that they spent so much time and effort in making the hard/fringe cases possible, they forgot to make the common cases simple and straight-forward. One of the basic design tenets we used to beat students over the head with was "Don't paint yourself into a corner, but never make the average user pay for features they'll never use." It seems with the PU roll-out they jumped straight into the specialty Boost/Mindstorms sort of use cases and are amortizing the R&D expense by retrofitting it into a full PF replacement in more mainstream models from the top down. Much of what people (historically) have used PF for can be accomplished with a simple on/off battery box or trivial half-dulplex remote where simplicity and battery life are far more important than two-way communication, connectivity with smart devices or even programability in the first place. I assume we'll eventually get a "dumb" battery box, but I'm skeptical we'll ever get a non-Bluetooth, non-App, simple half-duplex control system like we have with PF and that's a shame because there's is value in simplicity (remember - from a UI standpoint, Google was built around a text box and a couple of buttons and look where that got them). If I were still teaching a robots class, I'd be all over the new hubs and software, but in general, when I think about how I personally use PF today, PU is like using a CNC machine when all you really need is a hand drill.

Thanks for the pointer. I'd prefer an IR based device but at least for the purposes of not having my daughter mix "Lego time" with "Screen time" this is a start. I realize that IR has its drawbacks, but from my experience most of those were non-issues. My Lego stays inside so bright sunlight/light pollution isn't an issue; line-of-sight issues can be overcome with strategic positioning of reflective surfaces; and, restricting LOS angles with IR absorbing surfaces can actually be used as an advantage at shows to prevent obnoxious kids with IR remotes from screwing with your set-up covertly (though for shows, I still think 9V is the best option - but that's a different soapbox). Bluetooth, on the other hand, hasn't worked properly for me in a decade. It's sort of like that secluded vacation spot where you used to have the beach nearly all to yourself and then it gets a great writeup in national media about what an unknown gem it is and the next time you go back, the beach is so crowded you can't even see the water let alone spread out a blanket. My bluetooth stuff malfunctions/drops connections on a regular basis. I got a bit frustrated dealing with my wife's new ear buds so I borrowed a sniffer from work and at peak it detected over 300 active bluetooth devices within a 100m radius (only about a dozen or so were mine - the rest was just backscatter from a sea of mice, keyboards, speakers, fitness trackers, remotes, game controllers, toys and other such belonging to my neighbors. If you live in a densely settled area where everyone's alarm clock needs to talk to their coffee maker to tell it when to start brewing, Bluetooth signals become the electronic equivalent of dust bunnies under the bed. And while I'm ranting I'll just say that for the price of the Disney Train, a simple remote should come _in the box_. I'm okay with a box that says something along the lines of "Downloadable App available for additional play features (Smart Device not included)" but having a big flagship Lego model declare "Smart Device required but not included" right on the box in bright yellow friendly letters as if this requirement were a marketing feature, sets the wrong tone.

You can always re-sharpen them with a nail file or emery board, but I suppose it's easier to just take a fresh one out of the 55 gallon tub-full of them we've each amassed over the years.

For the purposes of simply running a motor, sure, I'm willing to believe that PU is similar to PF (assuming they had a simple battery box with an on/off switch). I'll also accept the argument that driving the motors is probably the biggest drain on the battery pack. However, I'm still skeptical about claims that the overall system is as battery friendly as PF was. The old PF system used Infrared (IR) to transmit half-duplex (one-way) commands to the receiver. That technology uses extremely little power when passive/sleeping (waiting for a command to come in) and even its peak draw (changing state in response to an input) is pretty low. The new PU system uses Bluetooth which has all sorts of interesting features that are hard/near impossible to mimic using simple IR schemes, but those features come at a price from both a complexity and a power consumption perspective. Peak energy consumption for bluetooth receivers is about 3x that of most IR based receivers. There is a relative new low power variation on Bluetooth that trades off various features in the name of longer battery life and less heat generation (I don't know which standard PU is using, let's give them benefit of the doubt and say they've embraced the low power version), _peak_ power consumption for this guy is only 30% higher than IR peak on average. So even if you're using the 'low power' flavor of Bluetooth, you'd expect, all other factors being equal, that your batteries would only last for two thirds as long. Trouble is, all other factors aren't equal, IR receivers are usually passive devices that sit around waiting for a signal that it's time to change state. Bluetooth devices are actively managed, master-slave pico-networks with registration, authentication and polling happening at regular intervals whether there's been new input or not. In short, the IR receiver on a PF scheme consumes appreciable power when you press a button on a remote. The PU Hub consumes power at least every 100 ms so long as it's turned on, that power has to come from somewhere. Unless you're issuing 10 commands a second (well, actually 13 to cover the difference in IR v. BT peak consumption) every second the train is running, the Bluetooth hub is going to draw noticeably more power. I understand why TLG decided to support Bluetooth (personally I don't agree with that goal - no Lego box should every bear the phrase "requires smart device - not included" - but that's a different story) but for something like a train controller, they need a simple PU compatible IR-based remote (ditch the Bluetooth, ditch the app - or at least make them completely optional). In the mean time (which is parent-speak for: "my daughter begged me to get this set and I caved, but I'll be damned if I'm going to mix smart phone apps and Lego..."), I suspect I'll be redesigning the tender to use all PF stuff and just throw the PU junk in a drawer.

I'm kinda glad they are mixing it up a little. According to Brickset (which I know is under-reporting because I'm terrible about updating my holding and rarely register duplicates) I _only_ have 124 of them in orange. The green ones were pretty rare (I only have three and haven't seen them show up in a new kit in years), but I've already amassed a half dozen of the teal ones and they just came out circa the City Space introduction time frame (at least that was when I first noticed them). Now if I could only come up with a good use for a couple hundred brick separators I'd be all set. Maybe Eurobricks should host a "featured part" building competition with a requirement that all MOCs must incorporate at least 20 brick separators as building elements

Maybe I'm just cheap and not especially picky, but when it comes to (uniformly) lighting large structures (like a modular or a City street) I've had good luck with plain old Christmas white LED strands. I happened across them in an after christmas sale a few years ago - three foot strand, battery box with switch, one bulb about every 3 inches. The brand I picked up were some generic made for Ace Hardware the LEDs were a snug fit for a Technic axle hole or the inside of a trans 1x1 round and the wire was fine enough to bury in the gap created by two palisade bricks side by side. It's not a great solution if you only want one or two lights; hiding an unwanted light mid-strand is a pain; and, all your switches control lights by the dozen - not the room, but at $3 a strand, I got two dozen lights (with battery boxes and switches) for the price of a single PF LED cable from Lego.

Probably the biggest thing to remember when trying to envision LDD as an IRL structure is to stagger the joints as much as possible, wherever possible. Even with 1 stud thick walls it adds a lot of strength to physical models. Personally, I like to use a lot of 1x6 bricks (or longer) wherever I can and to stagger joints by at least two studs between courses. A single stud overlap acts more like a pivot or a hinge when a joint is being pressed on from the sidewall, two or more studs stiffens things up to make the model more "play durable." I'm also fond of injecting a few of the "L" shaped 1x corner bricks and plates to stiffen up corners and, IRL, this helps counter some of the torquing the model would be subject to during normal play and handling when two adjacent walls are grabbed by the middle (several studs removed from the corner) to remove a story or pull the model down from a shelf.

While the new year definitely coincides with lots of new sets on a regular basis, that first wave won't be the only new sets you see in the next 12 months. Traditionally January brings something new to the table for a wide range of themes and then a second or third wave hits for various individual themes staggered throughout the year (a summer wave of City sets, a few new Star Wars sets for May the 4th, assorted new items to freshen the shelves in October just ahead of holiday gift buying, etc.) If you're not impressed by anything you've seen thus far, don't despair; there have been plenty of years when I looked at the January line-up and thought to myself, "this is the year I'm going to be way under my Lego budget - I already own everything I wanted from last year and this new stuff does nothing for me." Nine months later, I'm wondering how I'm going to explain the credit card bill to my wife because I loved everything they rolled out in late spring and summer. They call these releases waves for a reason; they just keep coming; sometimes there's a lull, but there's always something else queued up behind it. Chances are, sooner or later something will tempt you.

Ahh, sounds like you'd feel right at home in Boston. You pretty much described our system to a T (pun intended for any readers from Massachusetts). The big difference is, as has already been pointed out, despite all of these failings, in a _state_ with a population a bit under 7 million people, the transit system for metro Boston alone averages about 1.25 million riders per day. I'm one of them. I own a car. I live far enough outside the city proper to have a driveway (in some communities just having off-street parking is a taxable asset/benefit) and try to avoid bringing my car into the city whenever possible. On a good day I can get to the office in 20 mins from my front door to my desk. My record for a bad day is just over four hours. I can't really complain about the price though, not because it's cheap mind you, but because the alternative is ridiculous. My building has a garage where an unlimited parking/access pass is $1200/month. The hotel across the street also has a garage that charges $12.hr for the first two hours and $10/hour thereafter. Metered street parking (if you can find any) only costs $2/hour, but they're limited to 2 hours total (the traffic office chalks tires to ensure cars actually moved, you didn't just feed the meter) and the parking fine starts at $250. Having known a number of people from LA, I can understand how they might view public transit differently, much more spacious sprawl, no nor'easters to contend with, fundamentally different attitude toward cars and walking, etc.. I remember one time a classmate of mine in college (from LA) was lamenting the fact that he wouldn't be able to go to the gym that afternoon because his Hummer was in the shop; I naively suggest that he just go to the campus gym instead as it was literally next door, less than 50 feet from where we were having the conversation. He gave me this look like I was a complete moron and explained that that WAS the gym he regularly goes to, but you can just _walk_ to the gym, you have to _be seen_ driving to the gym and park somewhere where people will notice your ride. How else are they going to know you have a $100,000 plus car? When I asked what he actually did at the gym, he said he liked to hang out by (not actually ride) the stationary bike because they faced the right way for him to watch people checking out his car. At the time, _I_ was driving a car that was older than he was, was painted with Rustoleum, and cost me more to insure on an annual basis than what I'd paid for the vehicle itself - we clearly came from different worlds. But back to the topic at hand, perhaps the reason I can relate to Modulars is the parking situation - nobody has off-street parking and once you account for corner setbacks and fireplug clearance, there's precious little street parking for the number of apartments and businesses they need to accommodate. There are a few place around here where developers have gutted old brownstones, installed car elevators and turned them into modern garages with old-school veneers. Maybe the lego equivalent of that would make an interesting modular on day.

My picks for 2019 standouts: * Best Theme: Creator Expert, when your weakest offering of the year is the 10264 Corner Garage, you have to be doing something right. * Best Minifig: The new batman that comes with the 76139: 1989 Batmobile, I love the fact that the rubber cowl and cape are just as restrictive as the actual movie costume. * Best Set: (tie) 10266 NASA Apollo 11 lunar lander and 70668 Jay's Storm Fighter, the former for sentimental reasons, the latter was just a pleasant surprise that I really enjoyed. * Worst Theme: (get ready to flame me) Hidden Side, the builds are actually fine, but I take great exception to the smartphone tie-in. My runner up in this category is the new PoweredUp Control software system. Give me a dumb battery box with an off switch or an IR remote any day. * Worst Minifig: (No opinion, not really a minifigure collector) * Worst Set: I don't know, obviously I didn't buy it * Most Anticipated for 2020: Of the offerings so far, probably the 10270 Bookshop, but I'm not exactly holding my breathe in anticipation. Maybe I'll be overwhelmed by something that hasn't been announced yet, later.

While I salute the idea of trying to add more brick-built details with less reliance on stickers, the more I see of the 2020 8-wide line-up the less enamored I am of them. Seeing them all together (along with this year's models) the more I think that, with the possible exception of the Nissan, I'll pass on these. The designer claims that the goal was to get more detail and more authentic proportions and not be constrained by City-scale but the final output just doesn't seem to justify the trade-off to me. I wish SC had just stuck with 6-wide (even with all of its limitations) and if they really wanted to do justice to the details, proportions and brick-built features of the various IPs, then release one or two Creator Expert sets each year at 12-wide to go with the Mustang, Austin-Martin, Ferrari and other 12-wide display models that are already sitting on shelves (and, as my daughter has demonstrated, at 12-wide, Duplo figures can ride around in them). At 8-wide, these cars just seem too big for integrating with City sets and to small to be proper display models. I'd really love to be privy to the sales figures once these come out to see how the new scale, higher price points and choice of subject matter compare with the prior years' sales. Every official channel from Lego seems to speak with confidence that the reboot of the line is a vast improvement, but it strikes me as a bit of a gamble and I wonder if they recognize that and are just downplaying the negatives or if they genuinely believe that the new models are so much better people will wholeheartedly embrace them without question. I do like the new windshields though, almost makes up for the fact that the new wheel designs and wheel bases are incompatible with the old ones.

The New Elementary just did a post addressing this very question.

For those of you who see this as a must buy, I'm happy for you. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed. I carped in greater detail over in the other thread, but right now I'm thinking this might be one of the few modulars where I genuinely have to MOD things before I'll be happy with it. Right now, I'm thinking I need to: get two sets; make the Bookstore half a full 32x32 build with a proper interior; add an extra story to the townhouse; and, possibly, scale back the teal to something more muted. That would leave me with a decent bookstore and a 16-wide modular to get Assembly Square back on a multiple of 32 studs wide. I'm usually not one to MOD official kits, but, as nice and no doubt fun to build as this set seems, it's just not screaming Creator Expert Modular to me; it looks too small, too cramped and too simple as is.

Well, let me preface this by saying that of course I'm going to get this, but... I'm not so hot on the idea of it being two small, narrow buildings. I like that they are on separate 32x16 plates so they don't need to be next to each other in your layout, but it just seems a bit cramped for a bookstore. I think I would have rather seen a full width (and taller) building for the bookstore and saved the townhouse for another day. You could get away with cramped conditions for the two building design of the detective's office because when I think of detective's I think Film Noir and how that genre made excellent use of claustrophobic spaces, but a 14 stud interior for a bookshop just doesn't feel right. I'd rather have big rooms packed with bookshelves so tight you can barely turn around in (the kind of bookstores I grew up with) or a large room with a small internal cafe (like the bookstores surviving today) or skip the bookstore and do a couple brownstones/townhouses side by side. The narrow build combined with the bookstore theme just doesn't quite work for me. As for the townhouse, I don't think a shallow basement really counts as a third floor; if you're going to have a townhouse, there should be an extra story to give the building some real height. Most of the townhouses around here are 3 to 5 stories (not counting basement studio apartments) and really do exemplify tall, narrow living spaces. This one, while nice looking and no doubt fun to build, strikes me as just a small house; add some details to the left and right walls and you could picture it on a lot by itself with a yard and white picket fence (perhaps the unhappy neighbor of the Monster Fighter's Haunted House). Without the height, it just doesn't scream "urban townhouse" to me (maybe I'm just being picky here, living too close to Boston's Back Bay where entire city blocks look like one big modular collection) It's beautiful and all (and as I said, I'll definitely be picking one up eventually), but I'm a little disappointed. The two small buildings gives it more of a Creator 3-1 building or Diagon Alley vibe for me. I see a lot of unfulfilled potential here, not quite what I've come to expect from the Creator Expert series. Perhaps the joy of the build will make up for it. Maybe I'll just need to get two and double the width of the bookstore and add a story to the townhouse...

Funny, as someone with 15+ years experience in web development, this was my second thought as well (my first was "What the f...?") I sincerely believe that if this whole thing turns out to be a disaster, the market itself will survive. Buyers and sellers will find (or create) new venues and the free market will win out under a new umbrella, it just might take some time. At worst, this is an inconvenient delay (that will no doubt hurt many in the community) but it's not the end of a sub-culture. This genie left the bottle twenty years ago and while TLG might be able to wave it newly purchased bottle around, sticking the cork back in at this point isn't going to capture the genie. If people don't like changes that come under TLG's control, they'll just close up their BL shops in favor of BrickOwl, eBay or whatever other option comes along. No disrespect to the people behind BL or BO, but, at its heart, the software isn't _that_ sophisticated; the right people with the right skills and the right motivation could cook up a viable alternative to BL and, with the possible exception of post-aquisition non-compete clauses for current BL staff, TLG wouldn't have any say in the matter. TLG can't stop you from parting out and reselling kits you bought as a general consumer (reselling LUG-bulk buys and charitable donations from Lego might be a trickier matter but kits, PAB cups filled at stores, etc. are fair game) and if BL becomes an unfavorable place for sellers and buyers to meet, they'll just find someplace else to hook up. The internet is a big place. That said, I don't _know_ that this buy-out is a bad thing (though it does make me nervous). Maybe they'll leave things pretty much alone and simply try to learn how and why the BL culture works. Maybe they'll crack down on unlicensed compatible parts, beat us over the head with the "Official" names of colors and parts, and threaten to ban anyone who forgets to put the little registered trademark symbol after the word "LEGO" in our private messages. Maybe they'll deliberately mis-manage it so badly that when they finally shut it down people will be grateful it's gone; who knows? Strategically though, I don't see the upside no matter how they play this. If they want to learn how to better connect with AFOLs or improve their software for a MOC oriented audience, they could have done that by buying metadata from BL or hiring consultants (even possibly BL software developers) to improve their own in-house offerings - get the knowledge without assuming day-to-day operations of a foreign business model. If they are trying to protect their brand from dilution or inappropriate associations, they've actually moved in the wrong direction - Bricklink as a wholly independent entity allowed them deniability, now everything any BL seller does has the implicit blessing of TLG unless TLG launches a crackdown against any BL seller that deals in goods, services or policies that TLG disapproves of. If they are trying to control the secondary market, then they are delusional, they have a hard enough time dealing with clones and knock-offs on the primary market. If they were trying endear themselves to AFOLs, maybe they should have just opened up B&P as a BL shop and focused on competitive pricing. Whether their intentions are good or ill, I think I'm most concerned for the software side of things. I don't know if TLG writes their own software in-house or hires it out to development shops, but the one thing their software has proven time and time again is that they are a toy company that makes physical bricks, not a software house. When it comes to software, they're just not very good designing it and they lack the commitment to maintain it. Their shop web-site is marginal at best, software tie-ins to their kits over the years typically see the programs abandoned before they even wring all the bugs out of them; even large, heavily lauded efforts like LDD and Lego Universe just seem to come and go like pet-projects run by someone with a short attention span. Even if they chose to do nothing today with the BL site and Stud.io, it seems like it would only be a matter of time before they'd start tinkering in a well meaning effort to 'improve' things with their reverse-Midas touch and end up either diminishing what they've got or replacing it with something unrecognizable and less desirable.

Couldn't agree more on either count. _IF_ I got for either of these new sets (and that's questionable as I'm suffering from a bit of "Skyline Fatigue" at this point) Tokyo wins hands down. I appreciate the effort in Dubai set, but it just doesn't do it for me. The Tokyo set at least feels fresh, and seems to want to convey a sense of an ever-evolving culture with its mix of old and new architecture and Mt Fuji in the background. As for the Chrysler Building, I've wanted them to tackle that ever since the first ESB came out in the first wave, and the best we've seen so far is a tiny attempt nestled into a skyline set that was far too small to do justice to the building or the Art Deco movement that inspired it.

The short answer is 'Yes' For those interested in a more comprehensive/boring discussion: ABS is not a good choice for food contact items. Great for toys, safe to handle at comfortable ambient temperatures, even (reasonably) safe to suck on for brief periods of time, but not something you want having prolonged contact with your food. As has been pointed out, various chemicals can leech out into and/or react with the food as a result of prolonged surface contact. This is especially bad for fans of 3D printing because that process makes the surface prone to micro-particle deposition (which the food will then pick up) and also often adds lubricants and lead residue from the brass printing head to the mix. Injection molding is better in this regard but then you have to worry about possible release agents and other environmental contaminants and, while a glassed (i.e. the shiny smooth result of high temperature and pressure injection molding as opposed to the micro-pitting and layering you get from 3D printing) surface leeches less, it still leeches. You also probably wouldn't want to keep things made from ABS near open flames (like a gas range top) because burning ABS releases hydrogen cyanide which is both extremely poisonous and flammable. Now that said, I don't think these shakers actually are ABS, I had a set once and they didn't feel or sound quite the same as comparably sized Duplo bricks. I have a vague recollection from when I first got them that they claimed to be microwave and dishwasher safe, suggesting a different melting point than ABS as well (well, technically ABS is amorphous so it doesn't really have a discrete melting point, but let's not split that hair - suffice it to say that your ABS Lego can lose it clutch power just sitting in a hot car in summer and it can start to deform due to the force of gravity at lower temperatures than it takes to brew a decent cup of tea). In the US, a dead giveaway would be the Recycling Code. The US standard breaks things down into seven general families of plastics (identified by number) and then adds a letter code for a particular chemical (if known). In general, categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 consist exclusively of food safe plastics so the letter code is less important there. Other contries have different codes (I think China currently holds the record for the most comprehensive hallmarks) but most aren't organized in such a way that you can just say "oh it's a 2, this baby bottle is safe for my infant to drink from,' without knowing the first thing about chemistry. If it's ABS it should have a code that reads either '7', '7 ABS' or '7 OTHER' (code 7 is a mixed bag and a lot of the plastics in this category have issues with BPA leeching as well as other issues that would make them less suitable for food contact - but, to be fair, this is also where some of the most innovative new compounds (like bioplastics) are landing and some of those are quite safe for food contact). Codes '01 PET' '2 HDPE' '3 V' '4 LDPE' '5 PP' and '6 PS' are all considered food safe and are widely used for food and beverage containers here in the states.