When is a building block not a building block?

Every architecture class I have taught, and every architecture method I have used is clear on what a building block is (even if some design methods elect to ignore their existence).

It’s definition goes something like "a standard part that can be used in many different combinations with other standard parts to satisfy a variety of requirements".

I’ll discuss this definition in some detail, later, when I "discover" the idea of Reference Architectures.  But for now I want to reflect on what makes a BB a "good BB” – by which I mean one that, at the end of the year, you can say "yes, that was used many times, successfully both technologically and for good business benefit".

Think about LEGO®.  I recently watched a brilliant TV programme discussing the impact of Lego on real architecture, and how some architects directly embrace the notion of Lego in their modular structures and building project patterns – some even using it to build proper scale models(sic) of their to-be buildings.  But then they said something that I think profound.  Something I have actually thought for many years about the difference between the Lego I had as a boy and the Lego of my children:  something quite fundamental has changed.  A quick trawl via your favourite search engine will confirm there are lots who think the same...

In my childhood, the range (and size) of different sorts of Lego was very limited - I vividly recall seeing "flatties" for the first time and realizing how they could greatly expand the variety of things I could make.  I was probably 7.  So, picking and choosing parts from my (large!) box of Lego and it’s few compartments, I made houses, planes, bridges, boats, cars, and even people.  

Compare that imagineering experience to that of my kids – they had boxes (plural!) of Lego, each with a very specific picture on the lid of things such as a pirate ship or space station; and dozens and dozens of different sorts of Lego block... well, you couldn't call more than a handful "blocks".  How many compartments would their mega-box need?

In other words, it seems to me - and those in that TV documentary - that Lego is no longer a "general purpose construction toy" enabling children to realize their imagination; it's morphed into something focused on encouraging children to "make the picture on the box" (can that mean more boxes are sold, if each box makes one thing?).  I know it's not quite so extreme as an Airfix kit or a jigsaw – there is still a lot of room for using the parts in many ways; but the plethora of types of parts, some amazingly specialized with limited usefulness and - to me even more notable - the far wider range of "part size" at best hinders, and most likely masks the idea that children can use Lego’s "standard parts in many ways". 

So my wooden box with its few dozen compartments was pretty useless to my kids.  I'm delighted to say they loved the idea of a sorting box, and even (when older) tried sub-dividing the larger compartments to take more sorts of parts, but basically most bits went into a heap in the “other parts” compartment.

So what's the  range and variety of your ABBs?  Do you have so many that their usefulness is limited too narrowly? Do they do generally useful things just like Lego's "4 by 2" blocks and flatties, or would you compare them to Lego’s ray guns and pirate ship hulls? Most importantly, do they go together well?  Are they well proportioned like all the sub-types of flatties and ordinary blocks?  Because IMHO if they're more like ray guns and ships' hulls, they're not good ABBs.