In his article “Double-Loaded: Everyday Architecture and Windows for Improvement,” Timothy Love inquires how the economic models that carry value in the development of real estate impact building design. He examines the general types of American buildings, aiming to find a better solution for real estate finance development and design. As the net-to-gross ratio measures efficiency in speculative buildings to weigh initial costs against future income, the author demonstrates a need to find a better equation to combine added value and the efficiency factor with the purpose of creating more innovative building types.
He also emphasizes the importance of making the basic design a part of the development of the pro formula. The other strategy suggests using less double-loaded corridors and aims to improve unit planning, which is supposed to create a better relationship between the kitchen, dining, and living room. As double-loaded corridors have not proved to be efficient enough, the author offers two main alternatives. These alternatives rely on the better design solution, market appeal, and social patterns of occupants. The author highlights two general types of American buildings (Love 2).
The first type includes institutions such as museums or libraries that carry a more economically ambitious mission, where the other type has an investment goal and requires maximization of efficiency as such buildings are publicly funded. Such buildings include schools, office buildings, laboratories, and retail centers. The architectural expression is more necessary for the first building type and allows more flexibility and planning solutions. The second building type has more repetitions in private areas; hence, they allow for less inventiveness from an architectural side. The author explains the design of the row house project in detail to demonstrate the necessity of examining the influence of real estate development, finance, and environment on design.
Work Cited
Love, Timothy. “Double-Loaded: Everyday Architecture and Windows for Improvement.” Harvard Design Magazine, no. 21, 2004/2005, pp. 1-4.