Hey there.

Would you specify on what "top schools" you have applied to, and to what programs? People have different conceptions of what schools are at the top of the food chain.

As for your work, I personally like it and find some of the projects to contain some spatial ideas, while at the same time, others are dealing with ephemeral and social ideas, and these are important ideas in architecture; If anybody uses the word "buildings" when describing architecture, I would question their logic. Take this with a grain of salt, as although I am applying to be in an M. Arch program, I am increasingly disenfranchised with "buildings" and construction. As I recall reading in a recent copy of AD, Mark Wigley the dean at Columbia GSAPP says that architects are those who make drawings of buildings, rather than those that actually build them. Sure this can be argued, but understand everybody has different priorities.

A version of this statement is also viewable here: http://www.arch.columbia.edu/school/deans-statement-future-architect

On top of that, I find that many architecture students have horrid graphic sensibilities at times, so I think it may come down to the other intangibles that you have going for you, that is to say, your resume, letter of intent, and personal recommendations. Acceptance is fickle from what I hear, but think positive!

I don't see Wigley's statement as being that literal ... it sounds like a statement that is dealing with theory vs. practice more than 2d vs. 3d. I would say that having some sort of 3d work would definitely help you if you can do it. If not then some drawings with a spatial dimension would be good. I don't think that not having 3d will necessarily keep you out of some sort of architecture school, but I'm less certain about how a top school would view it.