$\backslash$table$[[$From:$,(1),(2),(3),(4),(5)],[$Refrigerator$,-,12,14,0,0],[$Counter$,9,-,5,5,9],[$Sink$,4,12,-,6,0],[$Storage$,5,0,0,-,7],[$Stove$,0,7,4,12,-]]$

The first kitchen layout is shown in Figure $2$ below. The walking distance between the areas is in feet. For example, the distance from area $1$ to area $2$ is $4$ feet, area $1$ to area $3$ is $8$ feet.

Figure $2.$ Kitchen Layout #$1$

$\backslash$table$[[\backslash$table$[[$Refrigerator$],[(1)]],\backslash$table$[[$Counter$],[(2)]],\backslash$table$[[$Sink$],[(3)]],\backslash$table$[[$Storage$],[(4)]],\backslash$table$[[$Stove$],[(5)]]]]$

For layout number one, the cumulative "load $$ distance" or "movement cost" $=$ feet $($enter your response as a whole number$).$

The second kitchen layout is shown in Figure $3$ below. The walking distance between the areas is in feet. For example, the distance from area $1$ to area $2$ is $7$ feet, area $1$ to area $5$ is $14$ feet.

For layout number two, the cumulative "load $$ distance" or "movement cost" $=$ feet $($enter your response as a whole number$).$

Among the two given layouts, based on the cumulative "load $$ distance," the better layout is presented in $$