000			01576cam a2200169 4500
001			##L131862
008			051213n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131862
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aBrown, M Gordon
245	0	0	_aDefining functional utility: a spatial approach
260			_aLondon _bRICS _c2000
520			_aWhile the relationship between the design of buildings and places and the value of the real estate they constitute has long been acknowledged anecdotally, it has not been successfully addressed analytically. Fundamental to this inability has been the reliance upon an inadequate conceptual framework: the concept of functional utility. The functionality of buildings and places has long been associated with their design. So has utility. But functional utility is a muddled concept with functionality and utility conflated under a long-standing assumption that one is the same as the other. This has retarded understanding the relation of design to value, highest and best use and the diachronic patterns of real estate involving use and re-use. After presenting several examples that illustrate the differences between functionality and utility, a review of the differing epistemological origins of these two concepts shows how they are similar to the supply-demand function of elementary economics. With this framework in place, the paper concludes discussing methods appropriate for examining functionality and utility.
520			_aThis item is no longer available.
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION DESIGN
942			_n0
999			_c104879 _d104879