In the hybrid model below I took the S shape from the beginning abstract models and used it in a section. At the same time, I used a broken linear path to connect the building to it's pier. I want to expand on the exploration of the S symmetry that I used in section and since we need to enforce anti-flood measures the play might take play in the way of positive and negative spaces.
All three of these schemes are great explorations. However, what is most probably holding you back is the complete lack of anything resembling volume. As an exercise, surfaces and textures are a viable approach when you are investigating a narrative which supports it. With the absence of such a directing force, you are shooting blindly in the dark.
ReplyDeleteGiven what appears to be a propensity for modelling (quite a noble characteristic in my book), start thinking volumetrically. You can still keep it loose and not consider the programme or specifics yet. The approach is FINE. There is nothing wrong with studying in the 3rd dimension.
Attempt a more tectonic material. chop up wood blocks, plastic chunks, little boxes of chipboard, found objects. Anything that has some mass and volume will help you more than sheet material. It is clear that you are playing with solid and void relationships. It can be scaled up and still used as a viable jumping off point.
The good news is that you are producing. The momentum is good. Channel it into ta building. If you are not comfortable with "narratives," do not waste time rationalizing, just do. Not to quote Yoda, but in a nutshell, "Think not, DO!"