Can achitecture be conceptual? Is architecture art? I would have to say yes to both questions. Not all buildings are monumental works of art, some are just simple shelters. In fact the only unifying element is the space these different structures create.  Through out history many buildings were erected with conceptual intentions. For instance Gothic cathedrals have many parts to them that have meaning. The rose window, usually on the front facade of a cathedral is supposed to be an eye to god, the heavens. But as Schmarsow stats, "Social and ideological considerations shape the building", so the iconical and structural plans of cathedrals were catered to the patron, who were often the clerical hierarchy. One has to tap into their creative aptitude in order to design monumental architectural feats. Which in turn allows me to call architecture art.

Santiago Calatrava, who is a modern architect makes use of conceptual ideas in his structures.  He also designs other structures such as Bridges, which makes me wounder if Schmarsow would call it architecture, because he only refers to is as something that creates space. "Spatial creation as

 the essence of architecture".  Briges take up space, they span a distance but they don't necessarily create a enclosure.    

I don't agree with all of Schmarsow's theories either.  He says that space can only be created and experienced in architecture. What about large scale sculptures? They often create space. He also says the architecture is also functional art. Yes, I agree but would that make pottery architecture? It creates a space and can also be functional.  In that case I guess I could call my self and architect!