We propose a physical model of the Great Lakes, and a distinctive building to house it.

The existence of such a site could serve many purposes. Perhaps the most important of these is symbolic. The Great Lakes Model represents changing attitudes in the understanding, use, and valuation of the Lakes. Even those who never visit it in person might be aware of it, and given some sense of familiarity. For those who do visit, the Model is not expected to become a museum, nor a school, but to feed some poetics of identifying with the Great Lakes. Biology, geography, ethnography, or history of the Lakes writ large might inform this poetics.

We propose the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratories (GLERL), of the National Oceanography and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as host organization; in part because we propose proximity to the GLERL Field Station, on Lake Michigan at the outlet channel of Lake Muskegon as the site. We invite the connection of this site by water to the Heritage Park downtown as a part of Muskegon’s campaign to reconnect with its waterfront. The Annis Water Resources Institute could then also become an active participant in the Model, particularly from the standpoint of public education.

Nevertheless we propose oversight by a research organization such as the International Association of Great Lakes Research, to keep an emphasis on all that is undiscovered about the lakes. It is possible that the facility could become a desirable venue for meetings of that organization, and of NOAA; but it is unlikely that the Great Lakes Model should become a full-scale convention residence.

The chosen site does invite different interpretations of the program. This is especially the case if the design proposes to replace any existing structures there. For example, to replace the equipment sheds adjacent to the field station would require the Model to incorporate new spaces for the maintenance and storage of instruments, and that might suggest a bias in the Model itself toward recent developments in distributed environmental monitoring. By contrast, to replace the beachfront bar and grill (Captain Jack’s) would require more emphasis on recreation, and could bias the Model as more of an “experience design,” albeit probably not a themepark ride. Or with respect to movement, a design could annex the Model to the channel docks. (This would more likely adjoin the Silversides submarine and small associated museum than the Coast Guard, which must remain secured.) A dockside site might include occasional access to research ships such as the Laurentian, or for the educational Jackson out of Annis, and even for a limited number of visitors arriving by their own craft.

Physical qualities are expected to be prominent in the character of the design. Sensitivity to the site is the foremost concern. Keeping out the intense weather, modifying the ground plane, and responding to the many view orientations must become subject matter of design, and not simply after-effects. Building technology may well contribute to the project’s identity. Whether that is driven by structure, envelope, resource handling, or by integration with the stuff of the Model is open to interpretation. Thoughtful use of materials is essential. One of those materials might be water.

The stuff of the Model itself may or may not be water. Hydrological prediction, which was the prime purpose of related earlier models such as of San Francisco Bay or the lower Mississippi, is not important here and now. If the model does flow it might be to educate about the likes of runoffs and currents; but that might be difficult to engineer. By contrast the model could be a set of still tanks in which visitors could paddle. The capacity to be IN the Model rather than simply to behold it seems most desirable. That could be as passive and low-tech as a stone mosaic floor or as active and high-tech as a system of sensors and-actuators. Projection is a component worth investigating. A crossover between this physical site and the growing body of online information seems appealing to make.

The scale of the Model cannot be measured in acres; however. A very large project makes it more difficult to fit the site and to suspend disbelief about costs. Nor of course can the Model just fit in a display case; it should be big enough to occupy. Therefore it is assumed that the Model will fit somewhere in the order of magnitude between 3000 and 30000 square feet. Ancillary features of the program will add to but should not dominate this footprint. A single space to house the model should remain the core of the design.

Space requirements for activities to support the model will vary by proposal. Site selection influences this; any structure to be replaced adds at least its area and at least some appropriate successors to its functions to the project program. Different approaches to the Model itself will demand different spaces for equipment, preparations, introductions, etc. Almost any project will require some sort of assembly space for on the order of 50 people. Some outdoor seating may complement but not replace this. Access may demand lobbies, ramps, and stairs. Parking is considered available already in plenty, but may be provided in site designs. Administrative spaces are to be kept to a minimum. Unprogrammed spaces for walking, sitting, and contemplating are to be brought to a sensible maximum. Storage is inevitably needed. If research equipment is involved it might be made prominent. Operations of the structure itself, over cycles of the day or the year, may suggest some variations in the spatial program. Further details in programmatic requirements may be specified by individual proposals or by the studio as a whole as it advances.