Thanks for the feedback, but my name is not Seuss. I guess that was meant as a compliment, but I prefer Dr. Sassi (or if you like it longer—Sassmannshausen Ph.D.)
Your input sounds more like digital creating or (Digital) Matte-Painting, and having watched everything on DVD from “The Gnomon Workshop” what they offer about this specific theme, it might be a nice starting point to check out their material as well. Just an idea.
Digital Matte-painting is split obviously in “Effect-only” and “Science-Fiction” (with an emphasis on Science), to start with an orientation about. Some artists use it just as “canvas” and paint what they believe is architecture on it. Certainly a way to go, if pure phantasy is requested. Others explore what the society could be and translate that into shapes and forms. Of course a large mix between is a given. For me, with a two decade background of architecture, the pure phantasy version is fun to watch, but ruins a movie for me—from time to time. After many years one starts to read architecture like a new language in a book. Some words might need interpolation (between what was understood so far, to interpret these) but the main sense comes across. Exactly the most fun, at least for me is given with the translation of a society into architecture. We had this year both extremes in block busters so far. I will not name them, but I think it is obvious which one they are. A good background in art history would be my suggestion to have.
To use CINEMA 4D for such is certainly a way to go then. The direction goes, from my point of view, since some years away from 2D paintings to the creation of complete “3D backdrops”. Here exactly I can see C4D not only as creation tool, but as well as authoring tool. Perhaps with a close connection to NUKE. Which is not in opposite to the suggestion of Vue, which I have given above, but C4D sits for me in the center of such a complex city development or architecture design work.
To use a car as base means a certain direction of a specific culture—where this would fit in. I guess you have a background story in your mind why that is shaping the materials in the way you describe it. If so, write it down, and develop a theory for it. You might notice that the “shape logic” follows then much more easily. Which brings me back to standard modeling, which is certainly useable for this as well, such as the series from Patrick Goski here on Cineversity. Most modeling techniques boil down to these standards. But yes, modeling is like playing chess, and to get good at it, one needs to practice.
Materials have their own weakness and strength in reality, and that in many ways. You can work against material or with it. In my philosophy good architecture is always efficient, which means it takes advantages of the materials (and not the opposite—Post Modernism artists might argue here ;o). This needs to be known and takes some time when you like to mix materials, so it makes sense. But that goes of course into an education about architecture, which we can’t give you here. To make this work for real, is certainly a different story. I can’t support this here, perhaps my tips from above might help there more. Keep in mind, most digital matte-painter are not at all architects, but many are certainly great artists, and have my respect.
Perhaps the differentiation was clear to you already, but I hope I was able to clear what we can’t provide.
My best wishes on your way to this.
Sassi