|Ph.D Student||Riklis Yuri|
|Subject||Argumentative Bass of Conceptual Decisions in Architectural|
|Department||Department of Architecture and Town Planning||Supervisor||Professor Daniel Gat|
This study examines the argumentative bases of architectural decisions and focuses particularly on the conceptual stage of the architects thinking phenomena. In view of this, it seems important to raise the hypothesis about the differences between the argumentative bases of outstanding architects in comparison with a random sample of the other architects, which have been named - the ‘regular” architects. In order to test the above hypothesis, this study includes three major phases:
- Proposal of a descriptive theory for argumentative bases of conceptual decisions in architectural planning.
- Development of a model which represents the two basic aspects of argumentative bases - content and structure.
- Empirical calibration of the content and structural categories of the model in order to compare the argumentative bases of outstanding architects with those of “regular” ones.
The results of the empirical studies include the following:
- Identification of the “spatial” and “informational” arguments as prevalent factors in the substantiation of architects conceptual decisions.
- Outstanding architects tend to substantiate their decisions with “informational” arguments more massively than regular ones who use “spatial” arguments more frequently compared to outstanding architects.
- Outstanding architects tend to substantiate their decisions with “extra-programatic” arguments more massively than regular ones.
The above results may have important implications for the expanding of the knowledge base of architectural creation phenomena.