I mention in [THIS POST] that I recently hosted our son’s 3rd birthday party. It was another one of our ‘low-Kee*’ backyard bashes. It seemed liked the sensible thing to do when you’re having over a dozen toddlers in your backyard to give them a myriad of toys and let them loose.

Originally, Winston had hoped to have a ‘Thomas the Tank Engine’ party. But I couldn’t find a Thomas invite on Paperless Post and the Thomas cakes on Pinterest all looked too hard for my liking. Trying to create a 3D Thomas face using fondant seemed way out of my league!

So instead of Thomas, I chose a construction themed party. Turns out that between the two sets of grandparents and us, we had amassed quite a collection of dump trucks, diggers, backhoes, excavators, cranes, cement mixers, and plastic power tools. It’s amazing what one can find in opshops.

Aside from all the building toys, there was a slide, a trampoline and a few sandboxes to keep the little ones amused. We also found construction hats and trucks that they could decorate with stickers and markers.

So why ‘construction’? Because we are all ‘under construction‘. Certainly my child is, and also me- both as a person and as a mom! And also because the cake was way easier!

When I googled ‘Construction Cake’, I ended up on Phoodie’s page. This lady is a genius! Making a birthday cake is a daunting task for me but her version is fail-safe! Even if I muck it up, it kinda looked intentional.

I had so much fun constructing it! When the icing looked not-quite-right, I blitzed a packet of Chocolate Ripple biscuits and dumped the crumbs all over the cake. Then I went nuts (and bolts) with the chocolate treats and construction toys. It was dirt cheap and super easy. Sure, the cake may have tasted like cardboard, but at least the cake looked the part!

So what did Winston think of the party? Judging by the way he conked out afterwards and slept for over 3 hours (this is a child who rarely naps in the afternoon), I’d say that he digged it!

*In case you didn’t know, our family name is Kee. Hence why the ‘low-Kee’ reference…