Post by Wyvern on Sept 20, 2009 12:58:32 GMT
Given that nobody could profit from the house because of the terms under which Lego donated the bricks and their intellectual property rights that stop anyone other than Lego making a public attraction from the bricks, it would be difficult for the house to remain on public display, should Lego determine that they do not wish this to happen. It certainly couldn't be marketed as an attraction in its own right. This begs the question what anyone will do with it, should it be rescued. Is anyone really going to want a leaky, multicoloured toy house that they can't let anyone play with at the bottom of their garden?
Another thing that this brought up for me is the future of the Plasticine garden. There were no such issues with that, as it was designed to be movable, and it has been displayed in three different locations so far. I spent a great deal of time working on that project, and I saw it in two of the locations. Seeing the garden at Chelsea was amazing - it was vibrant and bright and beautiful - but I also saw it a couple of times at the South Bank Centre and to be honest I found it rather sad. Although I loved that people could come and see it, I hated that it was getting battered and damaged, and that people had taken bits of it for themselves. Perhaps it got a bit of a spruce-up at Sudbury Hall (it certainly looked better in the video clip) and is being better looked after now, but a big part of me wishes these projects could all just be fleeting, brief and magical - like childhood, these things can't be held onto forever. The house is already showing signs of strain; it would be really sad if having been saved for posterity, the house began to suffer in the same way the garden did at South Bank.
This isn't to say elements of these things couldn't be kept - many of the smaller, independent structures could easily be retained, such as the furniture, fixtures and homely touches from the house, or the many animals, the picnic or the water feature from the garden for example.
I'm with Escapee, and with Pantropia - if the house needs to come down, it would be awful for it to be done without due care. Chainsaws would be an awful way to go. However, we already know how much good Lego can do, and if the house cannot be used for financial profit, then maybe the way forward is to freely donate the bricks to people and institutions who can make the best use of them. Surely if children start playing together and creating things for themselves, then the Lego house has fulfilled the remit of the series as fully as it possibly could?
Another thing that this brought up for me is the future of the Plasticine garden. There were no such issues with that, as it was designed to be movable, and it has been displayed in three different locations so far. I spent a great deal of time working on that project, and I saw it in two of the locations. Seeing the garden at Chelsea was amazing - it was vibrant and bright and beautiful - but I also saw it a couple of times at the South Bank Centre and to be honest I found it rather sad. Although I loved that people could come and see it, I hated that it was getting battered and damaged, and that people had taken bits of it for themselves. Perhaps it got a bit of a spruce-up at Sudbury Hall (it certainly looked better in the video clip) and is being better looked after now, but a big part of me wishes these projects could all just be fleeting, brief and magical - like childhood, these things can't be held onto forever. The house is already showing signs of strain; it would be really sad if having been saved for posterity, the house began to suffer in the same way the garden did at South Bank.
This isn't to say elements of these things couldn't be kept - many of the smaller, independent structures could easily be retained, such as the furniture, fixtures and homely touches from the house, or the many animals, the picnic or the water feature from the garden for example.
I'm with Escapee, and with Pantropia - if the house needs to come down, it would be awful for it to be done without due care. Chainsaws would be an awful way to go. However, we already know how much good Lego can do, and if the house cannot be used for financial profit, then maybe the way forward is to freely donate the bricks to people and institutions who can make the best use of them. Surely if children start playing together and creating things for themselves, then the Lego house has fulfilled the remit of the series as fully as it possibly could?
don't think I could bare to watch that 
I love a man who can handle a gun 
Although, putting the cat amongst the pigeons a bit here, if it's costing only £50,000 to dismantle and rebuild it, well, that's only about 3 weeks work to James these days. 
