Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset Forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

21026 Venice Cityscape is a nice model (but a terrible value.)

I just did an in-depth analysis of the new Venice Cityscape model.  I hope that it helps you decide if this is a model you want to add to your collection!




In summary: It's a nice model if you can look past some of the artistic liberties.  Unfortunately, the 29.99$ price is pretty outrageous for just 212 bricks.  (By contrast, the Berlin model is also 29.99$ but 289 bricks.)  It's odd to me how inconsistent their pricing can be for similar sets.


212 bricks included in the set

The part selection is pretty good despite the high price tag.  I enjoyed the printed lion brick, as well as the white microfigures. (This is the first time they have appeared in this color.)

One of the quirks of the Cityscapes series is that landmarks from around the city are compressed into a single scene even when the buildings aren't that close together in real life.  I prepared a map showing the locations of these buildings in Venice, numbered as they appear from left to right in the LEGO model.


Map showing landmarks featured in Venice model.

I enjoyed the build and the completed model a lot. It's a simple model, but it captures the essence of Venice well.


Breakdown of the model into layers of base, street level, and buildings.

For more analysis and additional photos, read the whole review at http://brickarchitect.com/2016/venice-cityscape-21026-review/

Sincerely,
---Tom Alphin
bluedragonkiki180703Kevin_Hyattnatro220snowhitiechuckpricecakeSeijiAmasawaklatu003madforLEGOsklamb

Comments

  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,416
    I like St Marks and the Campanile, Rialto doesn't do much for me, the columns are poor (especially placed one behind the other) and the Bridge of Sighs doesn't work without the Doge's Palace and prison.
    I'll probably pick one up if 50% off, or just BL the unique parts for St Marks and Campanile.
  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,613
    I love the idea but I'd agree the execution is a little lacking. I'll probably learn from the model's use of tooth bricks as gothic windows, but not actually buy it unless I can find it at a good markdown. Thanks for the closer look at it!
  • DeMontesDeMontes North YorkshireMember Posts: 333
    edited January 2016
    "One of the quirks of the Cityscapes series is that landmarks from around the city are compressed into a single scene even when the buildings aren't that close together in real life. "

    To be fair this is entirely reasonable  as it is a 'Cityscape' rather than a 'Skyline' or a particular area or road. It only needs to be accurate to the city imo.  I'm not sure how marketable a set would be if it had an awesome landmark with a McDonald's next to it and then the public car-park ;-)


    HangedSanchezkiki180703
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,416
    I'll probably learn from the model's use of tooth bricks as gothic windows
    They are Italo-Byzantine ogee arches.
    tallblocktookiki180703catwrangler
  • sklambsklamb speaker of American EnglishMember Posts: 456
    Sadly, it seems like far too many of the Lego sets for 2016 seem to be "nice models" but "terrible values." This set may be overpriced, but at least it isn't expensive! (For an AFOL, at least.)
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO USMember Posts: 8,268
    All I know is it is nice, but not at that price point. Will be waiting for them to be put on sale (and I'm guessing these will be on sale a lot)
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    CCC said:
    They are Italo-Byzantine ogee arches.
    It deteriorated so quickly after this, back when it had the potential to become a really interesting (and focussed) discussion. Ah well.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,416
    MattsWhat said:
    CCC said:
    They are Italo-Byzantine ogee arches.
    It deteriorated so quickly after this, back when it had the potential to become a really interesting (and focussed) discussion. Ah well.
    Why after my comment? It was a comment about architecture on an architecture thread. Not about value.
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    CCC said:
    MattsWhat said:
    CCC said:
    They are Italo-Byzantine ogee arches.
    It deteriorated so quickly after this, back when it had the potential to become a really interesting (and focussed) discussion. Ah well.
    Why after my comment? It was a comment about architecture on an architecture thread. Not about value.
    No, I meant that this was the last comment before it lost direction - you were the "interesting (and focussed)" I was talking about.
    And shouldn't that have been "Not about values"? We were discussing more than one after all ;)
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    sklamb said:

    TigerMoth said:

    I doubt that any Brit would use the wrong form, but some Americans do. Perhaps that's also because more attention is paid to formal grammar?

    Not condescending?

    No.

    I have absolutely no idea why Brits don't say it and Americans do; they are just facts of life. It has nothing to do with superiority, implied or actual and therefore isn't condescending.

    The only reason that I could think of is that Americans might be taught formal grammar whereas Brits are not. I suspect the latter goes a long way to explaining why some Brits have terrible grammar. I also know native speakers of other languages often have a terrible problem with whether to include an article or not, essentially because they do learn formal English grammar, but more emphasis is placed on the rules than the exceptions. So they "know" nouns have articles, and haven't the foggiest about uncount nouns, an exception, which don't.
    I'm sorry, but since "value" is a noun rather than an adjective, I don't find "a terrible value set" fine at all.
    Well, that's just tough, because that the way it is, and nothing you say or think is going to change that.
    In fact, I'm beginning to think that "value" is no longer an "uncount noun" in American English.
    When the topic was first raised, I also wondered whether that might be the case. However, what surprised me was that American English and British English are the same in that respect. I stated this in my original post on the subject. American English has uncount nouns, and therefore the constructs used were simply wrong. This is further substantiated by the fact that many Americans use the correct form.

    Americans can have their own language, and I'm not in the slightest interested what they do with it. There is no point taking issue when they use it differently to how somebody would use British English, quite simply because it is a separate, different language. On discussion boards it just leads to flame wars.
    Frankly, "uncount noun" sounds rather ungrammatical itself.
    That's also tough, once again because that's the way it is.
    But really, what standards do you expect me to use? I am an American.
    Use American ones if you want - the whole point is that you didn't.
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    edited January 2016
    TigerMoth said:

    Loads of stuff...
    Wrong thread, you want this one:
    http://bricksetforum.com/discussion/22495/a-value-vs-value#latest

    This one is about tooth bricks being used for windows.
    Small adjacent windows anyone:



    catwrangler
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Huw said:

    You can read about uncount nouns although value is not strictly one since it can be pluralised (but not in this case!)
    Actually it is. It's a word that has several forms and meanings, some only subtly different. In one form it is an uncount noun; in another it's a variable noun; in yet another it's a verb;
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    MattsWhat said:
    TigerMoth said:

    Loads of stuff...
    Wrong thread, you want this one:
    http://bricksetforum.com/discussion/22495/a-value-vs-value#latest
    I don't intend leaving a inaccurate and inappropriate accusation without answering it in the place where it was made. Sorry.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    And if @Huw picks half the thread up and moves it whilst I'm typing, what am I supposed to do?
  • bluedragonbluedragon United StatesMember Posts: 444
    I gave this set to my sister as a belated Christmas present- since we live in different continents that's OK.

    She loved it and that makes it a good value set for me ;-) (whichever way you want to write it)
  • legogallegogal USMember Posts: 751
    The cityscape line holds a lot of potential, and the micro scale is wonderful. It may encourage more folks to travel and see the world, which would be wonderful. And it shows us what can be done with just a few bricks representing iconic images. So count me as a supporter of this line regardless of the price/value issue.

    Tom has posted a helpful review with his analysis of the build. His building without looking at the instructions is entertaining as well. We each approach knowledge in many different ways (Gardner is famous for describing this,) and those with heightened visual acuity definitely have a head start when it comes to LEGO designs.
  • KingAlanIKingAlanI Rochester, NYMember Posts: 1,526
    Architecture sets are often high priced, especially since they use a lot of small pieces to help get the right appearance. So 21026 isn't particularly bad in that category.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy