Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
RIFHMAO
(Rolling in flour, halfbaking my ass off)

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                   

LEGO Community

and interchangable parts for buildings
  (+7, -1)
(+7, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

In modern arechitecture, it takes a great deal of wealth and natural resources to build even a single building, and in a few decades, hopefully more, the building will be condemned and demolished, all of its parts being destroyed and deemed useless.

Instead, buildings could be made of enourmous peices that interlock with each other without any welding or otherwise irreversible strengthening techniques. Using oversized LEGO pieces might be silly, but if they prove to be structurally adequate, people can build entire cities with them, then when a building is to be replaced by another structure, it can be easily dismantled and put together in another form.

With this system, buildings can be modified without being demolished to keep up with architectural style or safety codes. Third world countries can make giant statues of their dictators, and instead of wasting all that metal when the leader is overthrown in 4-6 weeks, they could disassemble it and build one of their new dictator.

jellydoughnut, Aug 03 2006

Buildings would look like this http://geo.ya.com/travelimages/sing31.jpg
[hippo, Aug 03 2006]

[link]






       An architectural friend of mine helped build homes in various developing countries and commented that the bricks used to build these homes were often lego-shaped. (i.e. with big knobbly bits on the top) But I think that was to assist easy assembly and mortaring for unskilled bricklayers.
zen_tom, Aug 03 2006
  

       Even so, if bricks such as those could be secured to each other without an adhesive they could be easily reused.
jellydoughnut, Aug 03 2006
  

       I like this idea, but I certainly don't know if it's possible. I have often thought that cars should be built this way, also. Not just replacement bumpers and side panels, but with actual style changing pieces. Here's a bun with little knobbly things sticky out of it. <<<+>>>
xandram, Aug 03 2006
  

       You could hold them together with an adhesive that disolves when it comes in contact with some certain chemical.
apocalyps956, Aug 04 2006
  

       //I have often thought that cars should be built this way, also.// Like the "gummi ships" in kingdom hearts.
apocalyps956, Aug 04 2006
  

       Yeah...um...exactly like...that.
jellydoughnut, Aug 04 2006
  

       I had searched for lego related ideas before posting this and saw those. I went ahead posting because my idea is based on different concepts. The buildings don't have to be lego at all, just some form of building material that doesn't require adhesive and is more cost-effective to reuse that to destroy.   

       Unlike [UnaBubba]'s plan, the buildings would not be built for their physicaal properties, but for their modularity. The Modular Homes idea is rather clever, but the homes cannot be furtherly disassembled. And the LEGO house if for use for one family and requires adhesive.   

       Those concrete blocks you mention (same as the ones that [zen tom] reffered to, I assume) may look like legos, but they require adhesive and are unusable, once sealed together. The functionality of this idea isn't in the shape (doesn't matter if they look like legos) but in the use. They need to be able to snap together.
jellydoughnut, Aug 05 2006
  

       They used to make houses and stuff out of stone without mortar. By 'they' I am referring to many cultures, including the Romans. I read somewhere that some of the places in Rome were built without mortar at all that still exist today, and that the important thing was the keystone, so if you removed that stone, the whole place would come crashing down.   

       Although, this idea sounds interesting, and a lot less wasteful that blowing up the building once it becomes obsolete (what happens to all the debrise from the demolished building, I wonder, is it just sent to a landfill or something?)
As an aside, why can't people design and build buildings as if they will be there in 500 years time. People did it yonks ago, with such magnificent buildings such as the Roman Colluseum or Saint Paul's Cathedral, so why not go for a functional, aesthetically pleasing look that will not become unsightly or out of place now or in a hundred years time? It might take a long time to build it, but it would be worth it in the end.
froglet, Aug 05 2006
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle