I think the next step would be to put these floor plans into the your building shape instead of the building shape that is on the site, to see how everything is going to fit.
The model looks good; the modularity is appropriately scaled to the site and the program. the falling-down gesture at the end of Dikeman is an effective response to this axis. I would expect the plan to reflect the modules in the model. Implying structure would be useful at this point if only line work to indicate piers, or walls. The functions will fit in rectangular spaces, crossing over modular divisions as needed for space. Light might be introduced between the modules. The curves are difficult to reconcile with the regular and thus far well coordinated massing. Suggested precedents are Allied Works Quebec Museum -compare their plans and sections, and Jorn Utzon's Bagsvard church (there you can see curves coordinated with a rectangular module, but they're synthesized with the section, and don't contradict the plan).
I wanted to see how it would look more curvy and smooth rather than broken up, like how it is in the study model, but I really liked that 'broken up' feature so I'm going to go back to it and enhance it in ways that will make it more functional as a school.
RE prior comment; the curves you're indicating in plan are contrary to the rectangular massing; the result risks becoming a-spatial and non-hierarchical. So I suggested the Bagsvard precedent for comparison. The plan will work well as rectangular modules and the structure will be more manageable following that pattern as well. you could then explore curving shapes in section, per Bagsvard. The Quebec museum example is intended to illustrate the flexibility of the plan within a regular modularized massing.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.