After finding a form of appropriate density to operate on, I will execute a technique of projecting a reading of figure ground onto the object. I will then tackle to problem of what (part of the city) is being aggregated or agglomerated. "But if there is no such thing as a figurative object, as Tafuri claims, then the architectural figure can be understood as an agglomeration of inhabitable cells."

So, mass at 6 is good - or massing from my physical model is better density to experiment figure ground with? Both have conditions of collision, but what I think using mass 6 would yield would be the invention of non-figure within the massing diagram that comes out of reading the figure ground, a method which may be applied to a mass with 'better' intentionally arrayed parts.