I'm in the same boat as you, except my gpa was a 3.15.

I've heard there are cutoffs with some of the top programs where they won't even consider your application unless you have above a 3.0 gpa. Not all the top programs though. I've heard with Harvard that they've accepted students with 2.7s or 2.9 gpas in the past (because their portfolios were probably the best in the applicant pool). I think Harvard specifically likes to admit the low-GPA-highly-creative type to represent the outliers - many of Harvard's admitted students are admitted because they go against the status quo, and Harvard appears to love that.

Some schools focus on your last 60 credits as well (which hopefully helps you, because typically those with poor gpas only have so because their first two years were spent socializing and getting B-minuses vs A-minuses. However, the GRE is important to show the top programs that you're actually intellectual at heart but not as great as executing that in an academic setting or, more specifically, a subjective grading formula. They know that you can be a brilliant designer with a poor GPA, but the top programs only admit the creative intellectuals (in my opinion), so that means if you're not actually super bright and creative, you could have a 3.7 gpa and get denied because your essays just arent at the intellectual level they expect. You could have a great portfolio from a visual standpoint but then F it all up because you're a bad writer, and get denied. There's a lot of factors. Portfolios the most important, then essays, then letters of recommendation, then GRE, and then GPA.

You should take more than a year off before you reapply to any of the top programs because they'll wanna see how hardworking youve been to overcome your sub-3.0 gpa. This likely means winning some competitions or getting prestigious internships under architects who went to the school you desire and are willing to connect you with professors there. I can tell you this process takes longer than a year because I'm currently undergoing it with a lot of rigor and I'm already at month #14.

Also, before you apply, think about why you're entitled to go to these top programs. You really need a reason to deserve it more than the rest of the competitors you're applying with - if you were admitted, you'd be one of the very rare sub-3.0 exceptions and you truly need to have something special about you to deserve being a rare exception. In some cases you might (I cant judge because I don't know you), but be realistic and make a self-assessment.

"Would a strong portfolio and professor recommendations counteract a lower GPA?"

But to answer directly: Yes, they definitely would.

However I'm thinking more along the lines of offsetting 3.0-3.3 gpas. Sub-3.0 could be a different ballpark I think. I'm only saying this while thinking of the top 10 programs though. You'll definitely be able to get accepted to an NAAB-accredited masters program if your portfolio is good enough, regardless of anything else, so you haven't lost your elligibility to get a masters but you might want to put some attention towards other schools that aren't as prestigious/competitive.

 "You'll definitely be able to get accepted to an NAAB-accredited masters program if your portfolio is good enough, regardless of anything else, so you haven't lost your elligibility to get a masters but you might want to put some attention towards other schools that aren't as prestigious/competitive."

BR.TN..exactly ..that's what I was wondering about...if the ivyleague schools or over the top famous ones are not the one we're looking for then does it lower down the gpa factor and increase the chance for acceptance..?

Well, in my opinion, even the schools that aren't ivy leagues or "over the top famous ones" still have a level of integrity where they HOPE to hold their applicants to the same standards as Harvard. Like, they still have high self-esteems and think of themselves as more prestigious than they are, in my opinion. A school like Clemson would be royally offended if you let them know they aren't a Top 10 program.

the idea as an applicant is that you don't discriminate the schools based on prestige or ranking, but rather whether their programs perfectly fit your wants/needs. so I feel that every school adopts this notion as well, regardless of prestige. If you design your portfolio for admission to Sci-Arc, and use it to apply to Yale you're gonna get denied because its not an appropriate fit. Vice Versa as well. You could get admitted to Yale and denied at a non-prestigious tech school or something because your portfolio fit with Yale's pedagogy, which isn't as techonologically driven it seems.

nothing about harvard/gsd represents going "against the status quo"

@BR.TN  

+1

On that note..one thing is that different unis offer different type of projects so...without going through/checking their architectural pattern it would be kind of playing a gamble to apply out there.So to find out what I'm looking for I need to understand what they're offering at the first place.